What's new

Hong Kong’s small flats ‘to get even smaller’, hitting quality of life

Mista

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
4,567
Reaction score
10
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
If you find the average flat in Hong Kong too small, get ready to feel even more cramped, as sizes are forecast to shrink further in the coming five years, lowering residents’ quality of life.

That prediction came on Tuesday from the Our Hong Kong Foundation, a think tank founded by former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, which also pointed out the government had overlooked two plots of land in the New Territories which could yield as many as 30,000 public rental flats to help ease the city’s housing shortage.

The average size of private flats completed between 2018 and 2022 would be 681 sq ft, equivalent to five standard parking spaces – an 18 per cent slide from the average of 833 sq ft in the past decade.

“The situation we are facing today – how we are living in cramped and small spaces – is because of our underestimation of how much land we needed and will need,” Stephen Wong Yuen-shan, the foundation’s deputy executive director, said. “As a result, over the past decade, we have not been creating enough land.”

The projection was based on data from the government as well as private developers for private residential projects set to be completed between 2018 and 2022.

About two-thirds of the city’s 800,000 public housing rental flats are smaller than 430 sq ft. For comparison, the average flat size in the greater Tokyo area was estimated at 643 sq ft last year. The average size of a Singapore flat was 1,100 sq ft.

Researchers pointed out that the shrinking average size was largely due to developers building more micro flats.

Flats of less than 430 sq ft were expected to account for 45 per cent of all private housing supply in 2019, a drastic increase from only 5 per cent in 2010, they said.

“Private flats are becoming more difficult to afford, so developers are building smaller ones to satisfy the demands of those who want to get on the property ladder,” senior researcher Ryan Ip Man-ki said.

The think tank’s projection was in line with new government data that showed the number of nano flats – those smaller than 215 sq ft – had surged eightfold over the five years to 2017.

Hong Kong is notoriously the world’s most expensive city to buy a home in, and is also one of the worst in terms of living space per head in the region.

The average living space of each Hong Kong resident is 170 sq ft, 25 per cent lower than Tokyo, which offers 210 sq ft per person, and 60 per cent less than Singapore’s 270 sq ft per person.

Officials have said they will be able to meet the government’s housing targets over the next five years by building 20,800 private flats annually, well above the required minimum of 18,000.

However, the researchers pointed out that Hong Kong would only be able to meet its targets at the expense of quality of living, by cramming people into tinier homes.

If flats were built to the average size of 833 sq ft, as has been the case over the past decade, only 16,900 would be completed each year.

“The average size of newly constructed flats is expected to shrink continuously, therefore, the quality of living of Hong Kong residents is actually on the decline,” the report said.

The government will launch a public consultation next week to get feedback on how best to tackle a shortfall of 1,200 hectares of land for development over the next three decades.

As a short-term fix, the foundation’s report identified two hillside areas overlooked so far by the government in Shap Sze Heung in northern Sai Kung that could produce up to 30,000 public rental flats. The sites, measuring a total of 64 hectares, are not restricted by statutory planning, country park protection or green belt rules.

However, Wong warned that Hong Kong’s quality of living would continue to go downhill in the longer term if there was no large-scale land reclamation from the sea.

“In order to not repeat the same situation in the future, we need to focus on large-scale land formation and land supply, similar to what we did in the ’70s and ’80s, when we built a lot of new towns,” Wong said.

He estimated Hong Kong would require another 9,000 hectares, equivalent to three times the size of Sha Tin new town, in the next three decades.

“Only then will we be able to have a better living environment where we can potentially have a large living area per person, a lower-density living environment and, as a result, hopefully all of us will be better off that way,” he said.

Democratic Party lawmaker Andrew Wan Siu-kin, deputy chairman of the Legislative Council’s housing panel, said he expected flats to become even smaller if the government does not curb soaring prices.

“Developers will certainly offer more smaller flats for sale because most buyers cannot afford bigger ones,” Wan said.

He added the government could follow some overseas countries’ examples and impose a standard minimum living area per capita.

But one observer said there was no need for such a measure.

“With average household sizes getting smaller, it is only natural that the demand for smaller flats would go up. The critics should not put all the blame on rising prices,” Wong Leung-sing, a senior associate director of research at Centaline Property Agency, said.

“Hong Kong is a free market. If the flats become so small that no one wants to buy them, then no developers will build such flats for sale. There is no need to have a minimum living area set by the government.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...l-flats-get-even-smaller-hitting-quality-life
 
.
Singapore did a great job with HDB...but Singapore also has more flat land it must be said.
 
.
Singapore did a great job with HDB...but Singapore also has more flat land it must be said.

But Singapore has to allocate a huge chunk of land for military purposes too. There are like 5 air bases for the RSAF, and height restrictions are implemented in surrounding areas.

HK actually doesn't lack developable land. They just lack the political will to tackle the issue.

-1x-1.png


The government has vested interest to keep land prices high so they can earn enough revenue without raising income or corporate taxes. HK is famed to be a low-tax financial hub with the freest economy. They tried to introduce GST but failed due to opposition. However they have huge annual budget surpluses anyway, largely thanks to the property boom. I'm not sure if they invest the surpluses for returns like Singapore does.

Tycoons and developers has vested interest to make huge profits and capital gains. They hog some of the land and flats so that they can sell at a higher price at a later date.

Environmentalist are against developing the country parks for residential uses. Basically NIMBYism.

Last but not least, many property-owning HKers themselves are against the fall in property prices because of heavy mortgage loans. HKers were caught in negative equity during the 1997 AFC. As a result, many households suffered greatly and some even went broke. Many family tragedies happened because of this, including divorces and suicides.

So there are many vested interest involved and the HK government is in a catch-22 position. They are paralyzed. Now they are mostly taking a laissez-faire approach and see where it goes. But I think that's just kicking the can down the road.

In the end it's the young couples, who aspire to set up a family and own their own homes, picking up all the tabs. Escalating prices and shrinking sizes, it's a double whammy.

But is it possible for property prices to appreciate forever?
 
Last edited:
.
But Singapore has to allocate a huge chunk of land for military purposes too. There are like 5 air bases for the RSAF.

HK actually doesn't lack developable land. They just lack the political will to tackle the issue.

-1x-1.png


The government has vested interest to keep land prices high so they can earn enough revenue without raising income or corporate taxes. HK is famed to be a low-tax financial hub. They tried to introduce GST but failed due to opposition. However they have huge annual budget surpluses anyway, largely thanks to the property boom.

Tycoons and developers has vested interest to make huge profits and capital gains. They hog some of the land and flats so that they can sell at a higher price at a later date.

Environmentalist are against developing the country parks for residential uses. Basically NIMBYism.

Last but not least, many property-owning HKers themselves are against the fall in property prices because of mortgage loan. HKers were caught in negative equity during the 1997 AFC. As a result, many households suffered greatly and some even went broke. Many family tragedies happened because of this, including divorces and suicides.

So there are many vested interest and the HK is in a catch-22 position. They are paralyzed. Now they are mostly taking a laissez-faire approach and see where it goes. But I think that's just kicking the can down the road.

In the end it's the young couples, who aspire to set up a family and own their own homes, picking up all the tabs. Escalating prices and shrinking sizes, it's a double whammy.

We only rented when I grew up in HK....the property prices were crazy bad (yep for the reasons you mention)...and the cost whether buy/rent was quite abominable to what you get.

We moved to Singapore in 98 and it was like an Eden in comparison (Singapore already had decades heritage in their well managed HDB and it has cross over benefit to private prop market too from consumer side).

HK definitely need to do something, but then there is the whole concept of how much intervention you want to do and set precedent in a free market (Singapore CPF management for social welfare account also comes to mind)....I guess it boils down to how much threshold HK average people have for this inside, esp if they comparing to other places/cities over time. Their bargaining power versus the power/finance brokers in HK needs to be utilised more I think.
 
.
We only rented when I grew up in HK....the property prices were crazy bad (yep for the reasons you mention)...and the cost whether buy/rent was quite abominable to what you get.

We moved to Singapore in 98 and it was like an Eden in comparison (Singapore already had decades heritage in their well managed HDB and it has cross over benefit to private prop market too from consumer side).

HK definitely need to do something, but then there is the whole concept of how much intervention you want to do and set precedent in a free market (Singapore CPF management for social welfare account also comes to mind)....I guess it boils down to how much threshold HK average people have for this inside, esp if they comparing to other places/cities over time. Their bargaining power versus the power/finance brokers in HK needs to be utilised more I think.

I think it comes down to whether a property is primarily for living or for investment. The people will have to decide. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your property appreciates, future generations will find it more unaffordable. And unless you have multiple properties, you will have to buy another expensive flat too.

Even in Singapore we are also trying to balance between 'living' and 'investment' from time to time. In the past, the government pursued higher property prices and labelled it as 'asset enhancement scheme', since homeownership rate is higher than 90% and they believe that the assets of most Singaporeans will increase. However for young couples it got increasingly unaffordable, and the PAP suffered in the elections. So they shift towards the 'living' aspect, or more accurately, affordability for all.
 
. .
Drive Porsche and sleep on rollaway bed, this is HK guys life.

I find it ironic that many global cities, not just HK, are living in more cramped places as they get more prosperous. Which begs the question, what's the point of being prosperous if the quality of life is compromised?
 
. .
I think it comes down to whether a property is primarily for living or for investment. The people will have to decide. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your property appreciates, future generations will find it more unaffordable. And unless you have multiple properties, you will have to buy another expensive flat too.

 
. .
I have a chevrolet, cheap but reliable and comfortable! it's enough for me!

TB2N8XEgsuYBuNkSmRyXXcA3pXa_!!195235561.jpg


@Nilgiri

Buicks are the most comfortable traditionally (of course everything got more standardised these days), back in the day GM suspension engineering was pretty much same thing as Buick research dept :P @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote @Ashes @MastanKhan

Chevy makes the best pick up trucks imo, and their cars are also overall decent. But their golden period (when they made the original Camaro to take on the Mustang) is long passed I feel....most american cars (and cars everywhere in world) dont really have the personality they once had.

BTW how popular are pickup trucks in China?

Shame on you, buy murican car.

But made in China right? Whats the big deal....consumer is king and should have all the options possible.
 
.
Buicks are the most comfortable traditionally (of course everything got more standardised these days), back in the day GM suspension engineering was pretty much same thing as Buick research dept :P @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote @Ashes @MastanKhan

Chevy makes the best pick up trucks imo, and their cars are also overall decent. But their golden period (when they made the original Camaro to take on the Mustang) is long passed I feel....most american cars (and cars everywhere in world) dont really have the personality they once had.

BTW how popular are pickup trucks in China?



But made in China right? Whats the big deal....consumer is king and should have all the options possible.

Buicks were ok when they were big and dad could drive the whole family to the beach with tons of chairs, picnick basket, huge cooler, and all the rafts inflated.
 
.
The average size of private flats completed between 2018 and 2022 would be 681 sq ft, equivalent to five standard parking spaces – an 18 per cent slide from the average of 833 sq ft in the past decade.

Hey, sounds like the average studio apartment in Boston or NY. Been there done that and it was fine at the time. Tough raising a family in such tight conditions, but as long as the bathroom isn't some wooden outhouse across the street, it's ok.
 
.
It must suck for the average worker in Hong Kong to slave away at his job for decades only to pay off a mortgage for his 300sq feet apartment. Essentially he gave his entire life savings to real estate developers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. Overinflated housing prices drives down consumer purchasing power, and unfortunately this is also becoming problematic in China as well.

I've always maintained that housing is for accommodation, not investment.
 
.
I've always maintained that housing is for accommodation, not investment.
Irrelevant.

As long as you allow people the FREEDOM -- and I know that word is difficult for you to understand -- to rent out the things they own, including houses/apartments, people will see houses/apartments as investments and avenues of exploitation.

The solution? Force owners to live in where they purchased. Why not go further? Price controls.

Hey...Go back to the communist days.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom