Why Hong Kong doesn’t need large-scale reclamation or country park land for housing

Paul Zimmerman calls on the task force that will look into the city’s land supply sources to carefully weigh the public costs for each. By this yardstick, the least damaging options should be chosen

Reading Time:3 minutes

Hyper-density combined with large areas of natural wilderness is Hong Kong’s competitive advantage over other cities like New York, London, Beijing and Shanghai. If we fail to recognise this, we risk squandering both. Illustration: Craig Stephens

Published: 3:54pm, 10 Aug 2017Updated: 7:37pm, 10 Aug 2017

Hong Kong does not have a land supply problem, but a land use problem – this was one of the conclusions at the 2017 Annual Land Forum organised last month by Land Watch. The theme this year was “Land Challenges amid a New Administration”.

In TV advertisements, the government confirmed that land supply up to 2030 has been secured. “Hong Kong 2030 Plus”, the most recent update of Hong Kong’s territorial development strategy, estimates that around 4,800 hectares of land is required when looking beyond 2040. This assumes an aggressive immigration policy to counter Hong Kong’s ageing population.

Committed and planned projects will provide some 3,600 hectares. For the 1,200-hectare shortfall, the government has touted land supply options including large reclamation between Hong Kong Island and Lantau, and the use of country park areas near Sha Tin, and near Pat Heung.

Groups such as Liber Research Community point out that the recycling of brownfields, and the upcycling of land set aside for village-type developments, can provide the land needed. And they are not alone.

Can Hong Kong’s leaders show the resolve to spare country parks and build on brownfield sites instead?

The Planning Department completed a land use review of Kam Tin South and Pat Heung in 2014, and identified sites for at least 33,000 residential units at and in the vicinity of Kam Sheung MTR station and the Pat Heung Maintenance Centre.