No_4_December_1964 — Page 74

joints; the walls being now akin to "dry-wall" construction.

Further, these buildings are often built on ground which is only just able to support them and which through de-watering and possible change in its nature, has further threatened their stability-the ground support is not as good as it used to be. The leases of these old buildings require the leaseholder to maintain his premises, but as they are also rent controlled, it may not be possible to- day for the land-lords to afford to \maintain them and make a profit as wel. It is also likely that no effort has beed made, at any rate since the war, to maintain the buildings irres- pective of whether it was economic to do so or not, particularly when floors were taken over by principal tenants and the

into area divided smaller bed spaces and cubicles and sublet at much higher rates of oc- cupation, increasing the wear and tear (the principal tenant reaping a profit denied to the holder of the ground lease).

'A Goldmine'

There exists a concept that land is like an ever productive goldmine, and that one is entitled to take out the gold but never replace it. Building. like other enterprises, has a limited potential for profit after which modernization or renewal has to be carried out to make a profit, or the enterprise has to be abandon- ed. The old buildings of Hong Kong have long lost their legitimate profit ability and the time when renewal should have occurred is long past.

That a good deal of renewal has taken place is not due to the realiza- tion that lease conditions can no longer be fulfilled or that a legitimate profit can no longer be taken, but to the fact that the Buildings Planning Regulations of 1955, permits con- siderably greater development than that which previously existed and the possibility of even greater profits lie open.

What has sustained the situation is the enormous increase in population; the developer at the moment has an assured market and is only concern- ed with "cashing in" whilst the going is good, and before the housing con- tributions of Government and other agencies begin to affect the market. At the moment, the contribution to housing, by private developers is

68

over 50% of the output, and there is a feeling that bad though their stan- dards (and practices) are, nothing should be done to discourage them from building, since what they are doing is better than nothing.

This is open to argument, and it takes a great deal of justification in the light of the human exploitation, in terms of high rents, short-term purchases, and absolute minimal space and service provided; which the present free-for-all development system permits.

The conditions of decay, already described is on a very large scale, and the fact that so many buildings remain standing is due to their lean- ing as it were one against another: some may be counted on to remain standing for a few more years, pro- vided they are undisturbed, though few conscientious architects, sur- veyors or engineers are likely to stake their professional reputation on issu- ing a certificate to this effect.

Then who is to say, which build- ings should be demolished and which should remain? There is little to choose between many.

Given a free choice, there is little doubt that all pre-war tenement type buildings should be demolished, but this involves the dispossession of something of the order of 350,000 families. When? As fast as it is possible to carry out the demolition! The social problem this would cause is almost too enornious to even con- template.

'Crutches Removed'

A considerable momemtum has developed in the last year or so, in the replacement of old buildings with new and as a result, very large num- bers of old buildings have been deprived of their means of perman- ent support, even for relatively long periods of time, when they could not afford to be left unsupported for any period at all they have had their crutches pulled out from under their

arms.

There has been some success (or luck) in inserting a wedge in the form of a new building in the gap left by demolition, but an alarming number of cases of collapse of neighbouring buildings and cases of neighbouring buildings being rendered dangerous, has occurred, before the new wedge could be inserted, making large num-

bers of people houseless without warning; not to mention those who have died as a result.

Irresponsibility has been shown by owners and their employees in the approach to the redevelopment of their sites buildings have been torn down, little or no shoring has been provided to the adjacent buildings; piling methods involving heavy vibrations have been used; neighbouring foundations have been exposed and left unsupported. It has not been realized, that work adjacent to old property is the most difficult of all building work, and in certain circumstances not to be contem- plated at all.

Irresponsibility or ignorance has been shown by adjoining owners, in not standing on their rights and ensuring that building owners do not carry out works endangering their buildings. It is alleged that some adjoining owners welcome closure orders, enabling them to evacuate their tenants without difficulty (though not without expostulation and com- pensation) allowing they, themselves, to redevelop quickly. Tenancy tri- bunal proceedings are often very protracted.

'Obstructive'

On the other hand, adjacent own- ers have been holding out for exor- bitant compensation for rights to shore and for damage caused. Exor- bitant prices are demanded by adjoin- ing owners, for the sale of their pro- perty to building owners wishing to develop these sites along with their own; and avoiding the consequences of building against old buildings.

Tenants and landlords have been obstructive in permitting building owners to erect internal shoring in adjacent buildings, and who can blame them, when this causes con- siderable inconvenience and disloca- tion of the building's function? Who likes to have a standing shore in the centre of one's bedspace, where this 6 ft. x 3 ft. space is all that one has to call one's home?

There are owners of old dilapidated property who wish to redevelop, but who cannot afford to pay the com- pensation to evicted tenants or the cost of a new building. Whilst one may have a certain sympathy for them, in the light of the circum- stances,

the fact remains that (Continued on page 110)

THE HONG KONG & FAR EAST BUILDER-VOLUME 19, NUMBER 4