2012 is a year of leadership change in Hong Kong as well as in mainland China. Civic and environmental issues have a high profile in the public challenges facing candidates for the post of Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, whose beauty parade is now under way.
Three particular discussions around the end of 2011 presented congruent pictures of the opportunities for Hong Kong to serve as an extraordinary laboratory for the future of large, high-density cities — given the right leadership. But do any of the CE candidates see the opportunity to be world leaders in this field?
The first of these discussions was a meeting convened by Civic Exchange, the excellent Hong Kong think-tank, to discuss the consultation document for a Regional Co-operation Plan on Building a Quality Living Area in the Greater Pearl River Delta (GPRD) area of the South of China, produced by the Guangdong Provincial government jointly with the governments of Hong Kong and Macau. The stated aim is to enhance quality of life by strengthening cooperation in the five areas of environment and ecology, low-carbon development, culture and social responsibility, spatial planning and transportation systems.
Air quality, water, waste and energy management are central issues that have to date seen little tangible cooperation. Yet this is an opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of “one country-two systems” by combining central planning and public-interest regulation with public-private collaboration; access to international expertise in environmental technology, intellectual property, finance and law via HK; and the excellence in civic management and programme delivery of the dynamic Guangdong Provincial government. With such a large regional population and huge economic resources within such a compact land area, the opportunities to become a world-class exponent of high-density urban living are unparalleled, given leadership, focus and cross-sector cooperation.
One example of the collaboration challenges and opportunities advocated by Civic Exchange is the control of toxic emissions from marine transport. Pollution from the combustion of low-grade bunker fuel used by ocean-going ships is a proven killer with solid emerging evidence of widespread impact in the GPRD. Among the world’s busiest ports Hong Kong ranks third, Shenzhen fourth and Guangzhou seventh in terms of numbers of containers shipped annually.
However, the air quality improvement gains made through a temporary voluntary agreement (the “Fair Winds Charter”) adopted by some of the largest shipping lines when in Hong Kong, which saw them pledge to switch to cleaner fuel at their own expense, are in danger of being lost once the charter expires at the end of this year.
This will happen if coordinated regulation or an incentive programme is not implemented quickly. Otherwise, the lack of a level playing field gives a cost advantage to dirty fuel users, thus rewarding the irresponsible rather than the responsible.
Tackling marine shipping emissions is a clear instance where cross-border regulatory cooperation would help to clean up the region’s air quality with the willing participation of much of the private sector — a quick win for new leaders in Hong Kong and mainland China. As an example of what is happening elsewhere, this year bunker fuel use will be banned within 200 nautical miles of Canada and USA’s western seaboard.
In the second of these discussions, the London School of Economics’ Cities Programme led by Ricky Burdett held its 10th annual Urban Age conference in Hong Kong on the theme Cities, Health and Wellbeing. Academics, policy-makers and activists met to debate the relationships between healthy life and population density among different socio-economic segments in mega-cities, joined by a virtual audience five times larger watching a live webstream. New research by LSE Cities on metropolitan health and wellbeing was discussed together with the qualitative research by conference partners at the University of Hong Kong and many international case studies.
It is a source of pride to the HK planners and land managers that 46% of the land mass is protected country park land accessible within 3km to 90% of the population; and 42% of the housing is within 500m of a light rail station.
However, a mere 7% of Hong Kong’s 1100sq km of land houses 7 million people. 2011 was the worst year for number of days with urban air quality at dangerous levels of pollution. The densities achieved in the new public housing projects are so high that “wall buildings” severely hamper airflow to purge the high levels of toxic air pollutants and “heat island effects” have changed the microclimate with unpredictable effects. Yet, ironically, the GPRD looks to Hong Kong as the future green lung of the region.
Reflecting on Hong Kong’s extraordinarily high density and acknowledging that restricting the supply of land drives up prices, Ricky Burdett asked the question: “at which point should HK authorities release more land to improve the health of the city?”
In fact, the outgoing administration has recently released its Hong Kong 2030- Planning Vision and Strategy, which evaluates options for increasing built space to enable further economic development. Environmental impact assessment takes its place alongside economic/financial, social, transportation and land-use planning considerations.
But how will a balanced scorecard be agreed to put each of these in its place? The study does not consider health and wellbeing impacts. The “Preferred Option” proposes developing green land at the outermost reaches of Hong Kong — particularly the boundary zone near neighbouring Shenzhen and claims that this would still mean less than a quarter of Hong Kong’s land mass would be built over. This comment is largely irrelevant when one considers the region as a whole. A glance at the satellite image of Hong Kong shows that across in Shenzhen the aggregate proportion of green land is very much less.
In the third relevant discussion at the turn of the year, all the candidates for the Hong Kong Chief Executive position outlined their individual “Visions of Urban Development” to representatives of special interest groups collectively concerned with Hong Kong’s quality of life, again convened by Civic Exchange.
The position statements of the front-runners — CY Leung and Henry Tang — demonstrated contrasting priorities. CY Leung (reportedly the popular favourite but not necessarily the favourite of the electoral representatives from the business elite) outlined his top three concerns: affordability of life in HK, air quality, and quality of housing stock. A property professional by background, CY commented on Hong Kong as a city of immigrants with a lower attachment to place than in more established settlements; and a city where strategic planning has historically been subsidiary to land management that fills the city’s coffers. He condemned the proliferation of “cage and coffin” subdivided accommodation for the rising population of Hong Kong’s poor.
Henry Tang’s five rather poetic priorities were: humanity; transport, soul, memories and creativity. One of the curiosities of life in Hong Kong is that translations between the Chinese and English languages are frequently very approximate; in many cases the translations are open to broad interpretation. For example, the term “built environment” does not readily translate into Chinese. Mr Tang, extremely fluent in English, explained his five priorities somewhat laconically as “people first according to needs”; rail infrastructure preceding land development; revitalisation of existing areas; holding on to landmarks; and more stimulus to civic pride.
So, both of the main candidates are saying the right sort of things to please their primary audiences — but will they have the will and courage to promote specific plans to deliver their stated aspirations? None of these aspirations is addressed in the Hong Kong-centric 2030 study that they will inherit, which is unclear how Hong Kong’s wellbeing relates to the Regional Co-operation Plan on Building a Quality Living Area in the Greater Pearl River Delta region.
With such a large regional population and huge economic resources in such a compact land area, there are unparalleled opportunities here to become a world-class exponent of high-density urban living. But a “Planning Vision and Strategy” is not a strategic plan. A strategic plan needs specific goals, actions and a timeline.
We must hope that Hong Kong can show the civic leadership to effectively balance economic development with health and wellbeing — and a population expected to grow to over 8 million by 2030.
No comments yet