Letters | Hong Kong housing: modular building is a case of the emperor’s new clothes

Readers discuss the trouble with modular building, and why seniors are appreciative of Octopus watches on rainy days

Reading Time:3 minutes

A view of the Kai Tak community isolation facility in 2022. The facility, built in a matter of months, is an example of Modular Integrated Construction. Photo: Yik Yeung-man

Published: 11:30am, 17 Jan 2023

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

There does not appear to be a unified terminology on Modular Integrated Construction, or MiC, which I touched on in an earlier letter (“Hong Kong housing paradox: why temporary flats cost more to build”, December 30). The housing chief referred to “temporary” public flats in a recent Legislative Council meeting, while a columnist in a Chinese-language newspaper referred to “simplified” public flats.

There also seems to be little awareness of the limitations of MiC. Instead, there appears to be a misconception that this method of construction involves a hi-tech approach, and is more economical and quick. High-rise buildings, it seems, are being envisioned, without a clear idea of how they will be built.

In fact, there are at least two types of MiC buildings in existence. One is the so-called fangcang or “square cabin”. These are prefabricated isolation and treatment cubicles built mostly in the New Territories last year. Around 10,000 units were put up, with the assistance of Beijing, in a matter of months.

The other type is the site office building, which we have been seeing in recent decades.

Considering the existing MiC structures, the main reason for the economy and speed of their construction is their height, or lack thereof. When a building is at most three levels high, there are a lot of savings because wind effects don’t have to be taken into account. Moreover, requirements for site formation, foundation and investigation, as well as for civil, structural and geotechnical design, would be minimal.

In contrast, for a regular site, what is normally required is a detailed site inspection by a structural engineer with adequate knowledge of civil or geotechnical engineering, which may involve probes.