In the course of Hong Kong's latest property bubble, officials have nurtured the myth of collusion between government and developers, because it allows them to use developers as scapegoats to pacify public anger. The myth is that the government is giving free floor area to developers and thereby enriching them. By pandering to the public, the government misses the point, which is: do Hongkongers want bulky buildings and to enjoy the benefits of the land revenues that go with them, or less bulky buildings, which means paying higher taxes and having fewer benefits?
This is the background to the ongoing controversy over green features and amenities in residential buildings. In recent months, headlines have focused on government grants of additional gross floor area (GFA) for including such features. The government's response has been to introduce new rules, which go into effect in April, capping the amount of bonus floor area to 10 per cent of the gross floor area of developments.
The process by which these new rules have come into being can only be understood in political terms. Through much of the past decade, activists have complained about the low quality of Hong Kong's urban planning and an obsolete building code. The Council for Sustainable Development has initiated two consultations on these issues, the most recent one focusing in part on the problem of bulky buildings that create 'wall effects'.
GFA incentives that were meant to promote green features are now seen as a principal cause of bulky buildings, and the public pressure has led to the Development Bureau's revision of the incentives. So, paradoxically, the result is cutbacks in measures that were intended to improve sustainability in the first place.
This farce reminds me of the Cantonese expression sik sei mao, or 'eating a dead cat', which means setting someone up as a fall guy, usually by planting evidence, a common theme in Cantonese dramas. Similar to a police officer resorting to illegal means to capture a suspect, the cutback of green features is a ploy to put the blame on developers when the real responsibility lies elsewhere. It is based on an intentional misunderstanding of the way land auctions work as well as poor public policy.
Let me first make it clear that I am very much in favour of sustainability. Not only that, but to some extent I helped to initiate the 'green features' policy. Ten years ago, in a meeting with Gordon Siu Kwing-chue, then secretary for planning and land, I complained about the proliferation of 'beehive' buildings where areas meant for bay windows were used to increase saleable floor area. I argued in favour of creating incentives for a more diverse architectural footprint. The idea was to reflect the demands of an aspiring middle class, as well as to continue to attract international talent to reside in Hong Kong by having better buildings. Siu reacted to this with administrative measures to promote green features.
The measures allowed a wide range of concessions in GFA. Balconies, for example, were granted a concession of up to 4 per cent of the usable floor area of flats, up to a maximum of 5 square metres. But come April, new rules will reduce the exemption to 2.5 per cent of usable floor space, up to a maximum of 3 square metres. The overall effect is to reduce the incentive by half. The problem with this should be obvious - it is a completely arbitrary measure designed to placate public opinion, and actually undermines the overall objective of sustainability.