RAS-1972 — Page 110

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

104

E. G. PRYOR

Section 151 of the new Ordinance restricted the depth of domestic buildings to not more than 40 ft; greater depths could be permitted, however, if every storey were provided with windows to ensure that the whole storey was adequately lit. Another provision prohibited rooms in existing domestic buildings which had neither a window nor skylight. Cubicles were limited to no more than two per room and each cubicle had to have a minimum floor area of 64 sq. ft. and a minimum depth or width of 7 ft. In rooms with no adequate natural lighting and ventilation, cubicles were prohibited.

Section 179 of the Ordinance when first mooted required every domestic building to be provided with open space at the rear equivalent to not less than half the roofed-over area of the building; however, due to opposition from property owners, this provision was made to apply only to buildings erected on land leased after 1903. For buildings erected on land obtained before that date, the amount of open space to be provided was not less than one-third the roofed-over area.

In the case of building heights, opposition from vested interests also resulted in differential controls being applied so that on land obtained after 1903 the height of buildings was limited to a dimension not greater than the width of the street whereas for land that was leased before 1903 the maximum height was set at one-and-a-half times the street width. A maximum height of 76 ft. and a maximum of four storeys also applied in addition to the above limitations. These provisions remained in effect until 1935.

It was not long before the new regulations came under attack, and in 1906 a commission was appointed to look into the effectiveness of the Ordinance and also the existence of corruption in its application. The Commission was very sceptical over the value of many of the new regulations and, in particular, criticised the prohibition of cubicles as this was frequently the only means by which Chinese families could obtain accommodation at a rental they could afford.18 The Commission also found that corruption amongst all grades of the officers of the Sanitary Board was prevalent which, in turn, reduced or nullified the effectiveness of the regulations.

18 Report of the Commission Appointed by his Excellency the Governor to Enquire into and Report on the Administration of the Sanitary and Building Regulations Enacted by the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance 1903 and the Existence of Corruption among the Officials Charged with the Administration of the Aforesaid Regulations, Hong Kong, 1907, p. 10.

Edit History

2026-05-12 19:08:09 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

104 E. G. PRYOR Section 151 of the new Ordinance restricted the depth of domestic buildings to not more than 40 ft; greater depths could be permitted, however, if every storey were provided with windows to ensure that the whole storey was adequately lit. Another provision prohibited rooms in existing domestic buildings which had neither a window nor skylight. Cubicles were limited to no more than two per room and each cubicle had to have a minimum floor area of 64 sq. ft. and a minimum depth or width of 7 ft. In rooms with no adequate natural lighting and ventilation, cubicles were prohibited. Section 179 of the Ordinance when first mooted required every domestic building to be provided with open space at the rear equivalent to not less than half the roofed-over area of the building; however, due to opposition from property owners, this provision was made to apply only to buildings erected on land leased after 1903. For buildings erected on land obtained before that date, the amount of open space to be provided was not less than one-third the roofed-over area. In the case of building heights, opposition from vested interests also resulted in differential controls being applied so that on land obtained after 1903 the height of buildings was limited to a dimension not greater than the width of the street whereas for land that was leased before 1903 the maximum height was set at one-and-a-half times the street width. A maximum height of 76 ft. and a maximum of four storeys also applied in addition to the above limitations. These provisions remained in effect until 1935. It was not long before the new regulations came under attack, and in 1906 a commission was appointed to look into the effectiveness of the Ordinance and also the existence of corruption in its application. The Commission was very sceptical over the value of many of the new regulations and, in particular, criticised the prohibition of cubicles as this was frequently the only means by which Chinese families could obtain accommodation at a rental they could afford.18 The Commission also found that corruption amongst all grades of the officers of the Sanitary Board was prevalent which, in turn, reduced or nullified the effectiveness of the regulations. 18 Report of the Commission Appointed by his Excellency the Governor to Enquire into and Report on the Administration of the Sanitary and Building Regulations Enacted by the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance 1903 and the Existence of Corruption among the Officials Charged with the Administration of the Aforesaid Regulations, Hong Kong, 1907, p. 10.

Baseline (Original)

104 E. G. PRYOR Section 151 of the new Ordinance restricted the depth of domestic buildings to not more than 40 ft; greater depths could be permitted, however, if every storey were provided with windows to ensure that the whole storey was adequately lit. Another provision prohibited rooms in existing domestic buildings which had neither a window nor skylight. Cubicles were limited to no more than two per room and each cubicle had to have a minimum floor area of 64 sq. ft. and a minimum depth or width of 7 ft. In rooms with no adequate natural lighting and ventilation, cubicles were prohibited. Section 179 of the Ordinance when first mooted required every domestic building to be provided with open space at the rear equi- valent to not less than half the roofed-over area of the building; however, due to opposition from property owners, this provision was made to apply only to buildings erected on land leased after 1903. For buildings erected on land obtained before that date, the amount of open space to be provided was not less than one-third the roofed-over area. In the case of building heights, opposition from vested interests also resulted in differential controls being applied so that on land obtained after 1903 the height of buildings was limited to a dimen- sion not greater than the width of the street whereas for land that was leased before 1903 the maximum height was set at one-and- a-half times the street width. A maximum height of 76 ft. and a maximum of four storeys also applied in addition to the above limitations. These provisions remained in effect until 1935. It was not long before the new regulations came under attack, and in 1906 a commission was appointed to look into the effective- ness of the Ordinance and also the existence of corruption in its application. The Commission was very sceptical over the value of many of the new regulations and, in particular, criticised the pro- hibition of cubicles as this was frequently the only means by which Chinese families could obtain accommodation at a rental they could afford.18 The Commission also found that corruption amongst all grades of the officers of the Sanitary Board was prevalent which, in turn, reduced or nullified the effectiveness of the regulations. 18 Report of the Commission Appointed by his Excellency the Governor to Enquire into and Report on the Administration of the Sanitary and Building Regulations Enacted by the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance 1903 and the Existence of Corruption among the Officials Charged with the Administration of the Aforesaid Regulations, Hong Kong, 1907, p. 10.

2026-05-12 19:08:09 · Baseline

View content

104

E. G. PRYOR

Section 179 of the Ordinance when first mooted required every domestic building to be provided with open space at the rear equi- valent to not less than half the roofed-over area of the building; however, due to opposition from property owners, this provision was made to apply only to buildings erected on land leased after 1903. For buildings erected on land obtained before that date, the amount of open space to be provided was not less than one-third the roofed-over area.

In the case of building heights, opposition from vested interests also resulted in differential controls being applied so that on land obtained after 1903 the height of buildings was limited to a dimen- sion not greater than the width of the street whereas for land that was leased before 1903 the maximum height was set at one-and- a-half times the street width. A maximum height of 76 ft. and a maximum of four storeys also applied in addition to the above limitations. These provisions remained in effect until 1935.

It was not long before the new regulations came under attack, and in 1906 a commission was appointed to look into the effective- ness of the Ordinance and also the existence of corruption in its application. The Commission was very sceptical over the value of many of the new regulations and, in particular, criticised the pro- hibition of cubicles as this was frequently the only means by which Chinese families could obtain accommodation at a rental they could afford.18 The Commission also found that corruption amongst all grades of the officers of the Sanitary Board was prevalent which, in turn, reduced or nullified the effectiveness of the regulations.

RAS-1972 — Page 110

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note