Demolition city
Why does Hong Kong knock down buildings almost as fast as it puts them up? Or in the most ridiculous cases, before they can even be occupied? Alex Frew McMillan finds out
Hong Kong will always be a city that favours the new over the old. That's part of its entrepreneurial spirit; it's a city that is constantly reinventing itself.
But one out of eight buildings pulled down in Hong Kong is not even 30 years old, according to figures from the Buildings Department. Critics contend the rush to redevelop causes unnecessary construction waste, and disruption to the neighbourhood. Oftentimes, it simply may not be necessary.
Of the 120 buildings approved for demolition through November last year, at least 15 were under 30 years old. The figures were similar for 2006, with 12 of the 136 buildings pulled down not having made it into their fourth decade.
Hong Kong's real-estate industry already generates more than 4,000 tonnes of construction waste per day. The destruction of young buildings that aren't anywhere near the end of their lifecycle contributes to that enormous pile of rubble.
But the demolition continues for a number of reasons.
Land prices are so high that developers look to make the most of any plot ratio improvements that they can squeeze out of their land, particularly if regulations have changed and made it possible to add more floors.
"In Hong Kong, the construction costs are just one-eighth of the land value," says Agnes Ng, the chairwoman of the Hong Kong Architecture Centre. "If building rules are not favourable to renovation, why not tear it down and build a new one?"
Also, government rules and regulations do not favour the refurbishment of existing buildings, since refurbished buildings must meet building and safety standards written with new buildings in mind.
However, architects and analysts are encouraging landlords and developers to consider refurbishments instead of outright rebuilding. The move, they say, can save both time and money.
Michael Pawlukiewicz, the senior research director for Asia at the Urban Land Institute, told the recent MIPIM Asia conference that he thinks the refurbishment of existing property stock will become almost as big a trend as the construction of fancy new eco-friendly buildings.
"The redevelopment of buildings and the management of buildings is an important area," he said. "There is a large market to green up management, and a lot of potential."
Although developers are currently focusing on fancy new carbon-neutral or eco-friendly buildings, realists note that existing property stock is vastly larger than the number of new projects under way. It would be wiser to focus more energy on improving existing buildings than devoting attention only to new ones.
Jane Murray, the head of Asia Pacific research at Jones Lang LaSalle, told the MIPIM Asia attendees that refurbishing existing office property stock can pay dividends.
In all, 52 percent of tenants said they were willing to pay 1 percent to 5 percent more for well-managed, energy-efficient buildings. Another 22 percent were willing to pay 5 percent to 10 percent more. Only 12 percent said they expect to pay less.
Builders also note that redevelopment can cut down on up to 80 percent of the construction waste produced by razing a building and putting a new one up.
There's a very green incentive to do it - money. A new building costs roughly double a well-refurbished one, and takes roughly one-third of the time to complete.
|
