2
coat of limewash be applied to the inside of the rooms in the same way as in Government Low Cost Housing. The additional costs involved are estimat at
stimateji $450,000.
1.
It is necessary to mention here that the main difference between the Resettlement Mark VI and the Government Low Cost Housing design derives not from the relatively minor matters of limewashing or glazing mentioned above but from the structural grid. In Resettlement this is 11 feet as opposed to 14 ft. 6 inches in Government Low Cost Housing. Since 35 square feet per person is the standard space allocation for both types of block, this means that the largest room (for 7 persons) in Resettlement is very long and narrow when compared with its counterpart in Government Low Cost Housing and, because of its depth, is not entirely satisfactory from the point of view of light and ventilation.
5.
Another important feature of the different structural grids is that it is possible in the Government Low Cost Housing design to provide both a toilet and a permanently screened cooking bench at the ends of the wider balcony, whereas in Resettlement it is only possible to provide a toilet, without adversely affecting the lighting and ventilation of the deeper rooms involved. In Resettlement one result of the narrower balcony width has been that tenants normally remove the wooden shutters and glaze in the balcony completely which, quite apart from interfering with the ventilation, has the effect of increasing external maintenance costs in the longer term. What is now proposed in the case of the Pak Tin Mark VI blocks would therefore be offset to some extent by a reduction in external maintenance costs in the longer term.
6.
The Director of Public Works has recalculated the difference in costs between the Government Low Cost Housing design and the Mark VI design, previously estimated in the Board's last report to be about 100 for each individual unit of accommodation, by comparing the relative costs of standard blocks according to the present allocation of room sizes. Briefly this shows that à Government Low Cost Housing block will cost approximately 14% more than a Resettlement block at any given time and at any given location. However it is worthy of note that, since Pak Tin Estate will probably be used to deal with overcrowding in Shek Kip Mei Estate and over 20 per cent of families in the latter Estate consist of over 7 persons, the use of Government Low Cost Housing blocks, modified to include a greater than normal proportion of 9 person rooms, will result in a more economical scheme as the maximum size of room on the Resettlement 11 feet grid is for 7 persons.
This means to accommodate families of 9 people, two, say 4-51⁄2 person rooms have to be allocated to one family, involving in effect allocation of a 22' 0" frontage compared with 14' 6" frontage in Government Low Cost Housing type buildings.
7.
1
02
.
The Director of Public Works has also confirmed that the population capacity of the last eight blocks of about 30,000 people will not be affected by the change in design, because of the introduction of the larger proportion of 9 person rooms which balances the loss in potential brought about by the airport flight funnel restrictions.
8.
Management costs of Pak Tin Estate at the mid point costing of the Resettlement manning scale would be $410,000, while these costs on the Housing Authority manning scale would be $540,000 $580,000. In relation to an expected estate population of about 52,000 people this represents an increase of about $3 a person a year which would be recoverable in rents as would be, of course, the higher costs of the Government Low Cost Housing design and the minor non-structural adjustments to the Mark VI design. The Board does not consider that these increases in cost when expressed in terms of monthly rents are significant.