This document is downloaded from CityU Institutional Repository,

Run Run Shaw Library, City University of Hong Kong.

Title Gating machine in Hong Kong

Author(s) Chan, Hok Yu Jasper (陳學禹); Chan, Ka Leung Alvin (陳家亮); Law,

Wai Leung Patrick (羅偉良); Yip, Wing Yan Katherine (葉詠茵)

Citation

Chan, H. Y. J., Chan, K. L. A., Law, W. L. P., & Yip, W. Y. K. (2013). Gating machine in Hong Kong (Outstanding Academic Papers by Students (OAPS)). Retrieved from City University of Hong Kong, CityU Institutional Repository.

Issue Date 2013

URL http://hdl.handle.net/2031/7165

Rights This work is protected by copyright. Reproduction or distribution of the work in any format is prohibited without written permission of the copyright owner. Access is unrestricted.

City University of Hong Kong

POL5701Comparative and International Housing Policy

Semester A 2013/14

Gating Machine in Hong Kong

Chan Hok Yu, Jasper Chan Ka Leung, Alvin Law Wai Leung, Patrick Yip Wing Yan, Katherine

Page 1 of 20

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the point of view of different scholars about “Gating Machine”. We then discuss about gated communities and their spread in Singapore, China and US, hence identifying the main “Actors” and their respective roles as suggested by different scholars in driving the “Gating Machine”. After forming the mainframe and major components of “Gating Machines”, we further apply the concept of “Gating Machine” to Hong Kong. We took an estate where we work and conducted survey to residents and summarize our findings in compare with the literatures’ view, thus, present which extend of applicability of gated communities in Hong Kong, and also foresee the possible effects of the continuous growth of gated communities in Hong Kong. With reference to literatures, we discuss the comparative advantages and disadvantages of gated communities, in which we conclude their impacts in the wide spread phenomenon.

Introduction

We have seen the widespread standing of “gates” which resemble a means of barriers for the restriction of public access to different residential communities. Such phenomena does not arise form random draw but driven by a “gating machine” or “gating coalition” which identified by different scholars. With the “gating machine” or “gating coalition” functioning, there must be various components acting and cooperating with each others so as to make this machine working. With reference to different scholars and literature review, we shall identify the main actors and their respective roles in such “gating machines” or “gating coalitions” in this paper. And specifically we shall discuss qualitatively the applicability of this “machine” concept as well as the widespread effect of “Gated Communities”(hereafter GCs or GC) in Hong Kong with reference to local examples.

Page 2 of 20

Literature Review

Definition of “Gating Machine”

A number of scholars had done research on the topic of the rise of Gated Communities (GCs) worldwide. By studying their findings, we found that the rise of GCs have wide range of reasons, from fear of crime to desire for status, privacy and the investment potential (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005), driven from the demand aspects. Besides the demand aspect, the synthesis of real estate developers, politicians, local media and other related institutions are also factors of ‘Growth Coalitions’ (Logan and Molotoch, 1987). “The term ‘Gating Machine’ was used to describe the combination of interests and actions by local governments, real estate developers, the media and consumers” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 124). Scholars further suggested that such gating phenomena came from the confluence of interest including but not limited to Government, Developers, Consumers which constituted both the supply and demand aspect (La Grange, to be published) and resembled a “machine”. We believed that this mechanism gave us a comprehensive analysis of how different parts of the “machine” synthesis give rise to the widespread development of gated dwellings. Vesselinov et al (2007) suggested that there are “structural conditions in place, which will secure the future proliferation of GCs”(Vesselinov et al, 2007: 124).

What is Gated Communities (GCs)?

We see many residential communities nowadays are physically “self-isolation” by the means of estate wall, fences or booms which provide residents a high degree of security and access restriction from the rest of public. Is that what we call a GC?

Scholars had defined that all physical forms of blockage is part of GC, including the features of gated entrance, security guild patrolling, closed-circuit television, access restriction, exclusive facilities and surrounded by fence or wall or booms and other physical barrier. Moreover, according to Atkinson & Blandy (2005), “public access is restricted, characterized by legal agreements which tie the residents to a common code of conduct and (usually) collective responsibility for management” (p.178). Furthermore, “A very important aspect of GCs is that GCs are characterized by self-governing homeowner associations, where elected boards oversee the common property and establish covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) as part of the deed” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 112).

According to Pow (2009), gated communities could serve for 3 different purposes: they are lifestyle communities such as retirement villages and golf club; prestige communities with distinct property value and security zone community for protection from crime. However, in reality, these 3 kinds of GCs do not have clear distinction, the characteristics often overlap. They respectively reflect the shared territory and inclusive values; symbolize residential distinction and using barricades in attempt to defend the real or perceived threats (Pow, 2009).

According to McKenzie (2003), gated communities could also distinguish according to how they share their common interest. First is the planned Communities of single family homes which may include mixes of housing types but typically feature detached single-family homes. Second is Housing Cooperatives which gives each owner a share interest in the building or buildings, along with the exclusive right to occupy a particular unit. And third is Condominiums which multifamily construction resembling one or more apartment or townhouse buildings.

Page 3 of 20

The Spread of Gated Communities

Gated Communities Development in Singapore

The Singapore case demonstrated the combination of public and private interests and state patronage which promoted and shaped the development of Gated Communities when the state’s economic growths led to rises of middle class housing aspiration and thus spreading gated communities.

Since the early 1960s, the Singapore government decided to place the economic development as the forefront of the national objectives. The city then undergoes massive urban redevelopment and formed Housing Development Board (HDB) implementing the construction of the public housing estate. The Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) had also formed to plans and guides the urban development in Singapore.

Since 1967 the government introduced Land Acquisition Act which empowered the state to monopolize the state scarce land resources. Through the program, the state owned 87% of the land in Singapore directly and indirectly through the URA and statutory boards according to Table 1 below:

Table 1: State Ownership percentage change

(Captured from: Pow, 2009: 218)

Being the largest landlord, Singapore government has intervened the urban planning and real estate development and introduced ethnic quota policy to promote racial integration in public housing estate in 1989. As shown in Table 2“the state mandated all public housing flat must adhere to the ethnic quota policy to ensure every block of flat has the right mix of ethnic group that approximate the ethnic composition of the country” (Pow, 2009: 219).

Table 2: Ethnic quota policy specification

(Captured from: Lisa Li, Race Issues in Singapore, 2011)

Page 4 of 20

Following the rapid economic growth and increasing income in 1980s and 1990s, the rise of new middle class and young professional created the housing aspiration of prestige lifestyle and led to the development of luxury private housing and executive condominium estate.

In 1990s Singapore government responds to the rising middle class housing aspiration started to team up with private developers to build hybrid form of gated estates and embraced the gated communities in state’s urban development framework. “Gated Community had emerged within the Singapore state’s urban developmental framework and social reproductive strategy of managing middle-class housing aspirations in the land scare city state” (Pow, 2009: 216). From the state prospective, gated communities are considered as ideal strategies which enable the state to increase revenue through land sales and also meet the rising aspiration of middle class residents without running into social conflict.

According to department of statistics general household survey 2005, “Over 90% of residents in condominium an private flat hold white collar occupations with over 70% of them in senior managerial and professional positions” (Pow, 2009: 220).

In Singapore, gated communities appeared as product of gated coalition. Gated Communities in Singapore had become the integral part of the overall urban development and social reproductive strategies that fulfill the rising tide of prestige and gracious living aspiration of young professional and middle class earners as well as upwardly mobile nation. “Manage the rising tide of envy politics, ensuring that basic provision of public housing continuous to be made affordable for the majority of the population, while the aspirations of a middle class polity for private housing are at the same time managed through government land sales programmes as well as state-sponsored executive condominium programmes” (Pow, 2009: 225).

Table 3: Main Actors and Factors influence the GC in Singapore Government Intervention

Developer Media Consumer Cultural Factor

Economic Growth

Yes Embraced in housing development framework

Yes Provide high quality and gated housing

Yes Promoted gated life through advertising

Yes Perceived as privilege and image of success

Yes Symbolic to success and extension of social status

Yes Increase of affluence and rise middle class earner’s housing aspiration

Source: Pow, Public intervention, private aspiration: Gated communities and the condominisation of housing landscapes in Singapore, 2009

The rationales for forming and spreading gated communities in Singapore are result of gating coalition. From table 3 above, The housing development in Singapore follow logic of growth/ gating machine politics which the state economic growth led the local government and property developers form partnership to fulfill consumer’s housing needs. In fact, the security concerns are not the prime reasons for people to move into gated communities but the rising income, privilege and perception that driven the gated communities to be formed and spread.

Page 5 of 20

Gated Communities Development in US

GC was first found in 1850s in US “originated in wealthy communities, on family estates” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 112) such as Llewellyn Park, and some others were “to provide hunting and fishing amenities” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 112) like the Tuxedo Park in New York opened in 1866. The Tuxedo Park was gated as it was “surrounded by a barbed-wire fence that is 8 feet high and 24 miles long” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 112). Between 1867 and 1905 private streets was introduced in St. Louis.

We could see the early formation of gated communities contained certain extend of the interest of owners/ users which later identified as consumers. However, there were two main trends in GCs observed since the 1970s: the privatization of entire cities and the diversification of GCs by race, class, and tenure” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 113) and “that gated living is no longer the option only for the very top tier of American society” (Vessilinov et al, 2007: 113). Vessilinov et al further supported his idea by using the American Housing Survey 2001 showing below. From the survey, the most race living in GCs is no longer Whites only, but it is actually Asians. Vessilinov et al also found that different income group also lives in GCs, it is not only the wealthy group.

Source: Vessilinov et al, 2007: 115 Scholars Vessilinov et al (2007) suggested that the growth of gated communities was not solely the demand driven effect. It was suggested the growth was provoked by the economic growth, which other parties such as “politicians, the local media, and other related institutions are predominantly fiscal” (p. 120) also contributed into the effect, in order to maximize their profits/interests.

Gated Communities Development in China

In China, the rapid growth of gated communities was found after 1978 economic reform. Scholar Pu Miao (2003) was concerned that how “a capitalist concept started in the US no earlier than the 1980s, spread so fast in China?” (Miao, 2003: 58). Miao suggested that the spread of the GCs was due to the growth of economy. He pointed out that during the 1950s to 1960s, before the growth of economy, there were ‘workers’ new villages, which the houses were about 6-7 storey high and had no wall. Not until after the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, massive housing development had been taken place under the order of the government. Miao further suggested that “it is safe to say that almost all the adding housing stock took the form of gated communities” (Miao, 2003: 47). During the economic growth, “The government sees

Page 6 of 20

maintaining social stability as its topmost political concern, and gating as a quick solution to crime control which directly contributes to stability” (Miao, 2003: 49) and “governments of all levels have included gating residential areas as part of their programmes”. Under this circumstance, Miao suggested that the Chinese government had become one of the main actors causing the expansion of gated communities.

Besides the Chinese government, Miao also suggested that “gating also has a deeper root in Chinese culture and urban history, which explains why both residents and the government accept it more quickly than they do other Western ideas” (Miao, 2003: 58). When we visit China cities such as Beijing, Xi’an, the capital city of ancient Chinese emperor, we could still see how wall is commonly used in historical buildings. From the Forbidden City, The Great Wall, from palace to temples & parks, the Chinese had always used gating for security reason (Miao, 2003). Although the Forbidden City existed only for the emperor (Miao, 2003), and is not a community, however, the concept of using physical barrier had already planted in the Chinese much earlier than the US. And such segregation was made by the emperor to exhibit his own prestige. Therefore, the people in China are rather easy to accept this gated concept as it had been deep rooted in the culture and hence generate the consumer demand as represented the prestigious status.

Main Actors and their respective roles in the “Gating Machine”

As we have defined “Gating Machine” in the beginning of our article, it is a confluence of interest of different sectors. We could not see the existence of gated communities as the ultimate goal of any sector. Scholars have different perspectives on the major actors and their respective roles in driving the “Machine”. From the summary of La Grange (La Grange, to be published) research, we tabulated the major actors highlighted by different scholars as Table 4 below:

Table 4 : Main Actors highlighted by different Scholars

Scholars Actors / Driving forces Ve

ssili

nov

et a

l (2

007)

Lo

gan

and

Mol

otoc

h (1

987)

Paci

one

(200

6)

McK

enzi

e (1

998)

La G

rang

e (to

be

publ

ishe

d)

Government (Planner)

Developers

Real Estate Agents

Property Managers

Consumer

(Potential Residents)

Media

Politicians

Source: La Grange, to be published in Housing Studies

Page 7 of 20

From Table 4, scholars identified 7 main actors facilitating the “Gating Machine” in which suggested the Government, Developers and Consumer roles are more significantly than the others.

From Table 5 below, we also tabulated the actors and their roles according to different scholars’ discussion. Some scholars identified common actors functioning the “machine”, however, the scholars also suggested these actors have different roles which we could further discuss.

Tabl

e 5:

Mai

n A

ctor

s and

res

pect

ive

role

hig

hlig

hted

by

diffe

rent

Sch

olar

s

Reg

ion

US

US

US

US

HK

Rol

e

1.

Attr

act t

ax b

ase

and

high

er n

et re

venu

e in

duce

to a

llow

mor

e G

Cs

2.

GC

s inc

reas

e m

arke

t rev

enue

and

attr

act d

evel

oper

s to

build

mor

e 3.

C

oope

rate

with

dev

elop

ers f

or m

arke

ting

purp

ose

4.

Fear

s of c

rime

– se

ek G

Cs a

s a p

rivat

ised

and

secu

red

plac

e to

live

in

1.

Prof

it-m

axim

izin

g or

ient

ed, p

rivat

isat

ion

of p

ublic

spac

e 2.

in

fluen

ce p

oliti

cal d

ecis

ions

rela

ted

to z

onin

g, g

row

th p

olic

ies,

infr

astru

ctur

e 3.

af

fect

s the

per

cept

ion

of p

ublic

esp

ecia

lly th

e el

ite g

roup

1.

To m

aint

ain

prof

it by

supp

lyin

g a

mor

e co

st e

ffect

ive

hous

ing

type

2.

Lo

cal g

over

nmen

t see

ks g

row

th a

nd m

inim

isin

g ex

pend

iture

3.

In

crea

sing

wea

lthy

hous

ehol

d se

ek G

Cs t

ype

of h

ousi

ng

1.

Seek

gro

wth

and

incr

ease

tax

reve

nue

and

min

imis

e ex

pend

iture

2.

M

ass-

prod

uce

hous

ing

to m

axim

ise

land

use

retu

rn

3.

Cre

ates

mar

ket d

eman

d fo

r a u

topi

a an

d lif

esty

le a

ccom

mod

atio

n

1.

Pass

pla

n th

at p

erm

it th

e de

velo

pmen

t 2.

Pr

ovid

e th

e G

Cs d

irect

ly

3.

Rei

nfor

ce th

e im

porta

nce

of C

lub

good

, Goo

d m

anag

emen

t and

secu

rity

4.

Prom

ote

“Gat

eles

s” a

s it i

s eas

ier t

o m

anag

ed

Act

ors

1.

Gov

ernm

ent

2.

Dev

elop

ers

3.

Med

ia

4.

Con

sum

ers

1.

Dev

elop

ers

2.

Polit

icia

n 3.

M

edia

1.

Dev

elop

ers

2.

Gov

ernm

ent

3.

Con

sum

er

1.

Gov

ernm

ent

2.

Dev

elop

er

3.

Con

sum

er

1.

Gov

ernm

ent

2.

Dev

elop

er

3.

Rea

l Est

ate A

gent

4.

Pr

oper

ty M

anag

er

Scho

lars

Vess

ilino

v et

al

(2

007:

12

1-12

3)

Loga

n an

d M

olot

och

(198

7:66

-73)

Paci

one

(200

6:54

7)

McK

enzi

e (2

003:

20

7-20

8)

La G

rang

e (to

be

publ

ishe

d:

2-7)

Page 8 of 20

We hereby summarize different roles of the main actors discussed by the 5 scholars above:

Government

Government aims to promote economic growth with less public expenditure (McKenzie, 2003). It major function is to reallocate resources (i.e. wealth) through collection of tax and provision of community goods and services especially to those in need. Other than that, being the city planner, government has an absolute power in controlling the spread of GCs by implementing policies which may support or neutral or oppose to the formation of gated communities (La Grange, to be published).

Other scholars also suggested that government has their own concerns such as to promote the development of GCs so as to meet the needs of particular groups e.g. elderly as well as to make use of underutilized land; it also contributes to the revitalization of town centers by promoting mixed projects, which we called the process of gentrification, for promoting the erection of gated communities (McKenzie, 2005). From the economic viewpoint, GCs were promoted because they represent growth (i.e. more jobs and the rise of complementary industries), increased tax revenues (i.e. income from land selling and property tax) and less public expenditure (i.e. GCs resemble the function of and act like a mini-government which provide community goods and services so that alleviate the burden on the government) (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). Regionally, in particular the Chinese Government support the spread of GCs with aims to control crime and enhance social stability (Miao, 2003) while Singapore Government support developing GCs because it is an important source of revenue by intensively utilizing the land resources (Pow, 2009).

For example, Taiwan Government implements policy to require the formation and governance of buildings by homeowner associations (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005; McKenzie, 2005).

From these points, we can see that government has very high incentives to develop and the absolute power in controlling the spread of GCs by land use planning approval.

Developers

For the developers, it is a profit making organization which faces limited resources and various restrictions. It maximizes profit thought developing a marketable accommodation which provides security, status, privacy, a good investment choice as well as an opportunity to live with like-mind people to potential consumers (Genis, 2007). In other words, it develops product which meets the demand and taste preference of the consumers. But why we see developers prefer to develop GCs? Referring to the nature of GCs, the high rise and compact design allows cost effective and higher density development which implies more units on the land can be built and sold in the market (McKenzie, 2003). However, such phenomena implies the loss of personal space to the residents and so developers have to compensate them by giving attractive remuneration and most often we see the provision of common facilities and services within the GCs or what we called the Club Goods (McKenzie, 2003). Nevertheless, only the access right to the Club Goods is not enough to induce the consumers to buy the GCs unit, so the developer and the property manager restricts the public access and enjoyment by excluding them apart from non-resident members, such exclusive access give consumers a prestige and higher status in mind and attracting them to pay for the units in GCs although the private space is loss (McKenzie, 2003). In addition, GCs provide control on the use of common facilities, in which exclusive to residents and their guests only, which reduce the risk and cost of creation and maintenance of such facilities (Pow, 2009). In recent years, the falling cost of security devices such as

Page 9 of 20

CCTVs, smartcard access system, finger print recognition system allows these equipment to be incorporated in the design of GCs which gives GCs a high level and professional security with relative lower cost (Manzi & Smith Bowers, 2005). In addition, particularly in the US, some developers are tactically choosing the place of development to seek higher returns by privatization of public space through the erection of barriers (i.e. Florida’s Gulf Coast and New Jersey’s “Gold Coast” in US) (Logan and Molotoch, 1987; Vessilinov et al, 2007). Hence, due to the great profit generation potential, we can see that developers have very high incentives to develop GCs.

Real Estate Agents

For the real estate agents, they aim to maximize transaction numbers and the mutual deal value since they can earn more commission from transaction. Based on this perspective, agents will promote the transactions of GCs as offering a kind of investment assets with a various useful and prestigious facilities and services as well as giving consumers a lifestyle that is packaged to meet the demands of a niche of the housing market and protection from criminals and interference from outsiders (Mycoo, 2006).

On the other hand, by serving as a middleman which gives a bridge to connect the developers and consumers, it also promoting GCs by introducing a modern style development to replace the old, underutilized, without managed types of housing (La Grange, to be published).

Property Managers

Property Managers is responsible for delivery of all services and utilities that the developments claim to provide such as supervise and monitor the security, cleaning and maintenance conditions of the property; to manage disputes and conflicts between residents and protect the communities from intrusion by outsiders such as sales promoters (La Grange, to be published).

The existence of Property Manager can reinforce the spread of GCs since it provides a “selling point” for the Real Estate Agents to the consumers of which the property is “Under Managed”; such “Under Managed” implies long term maintenance and improvement of the property so that the premises value can be maintained or even revaluated overtime (La Grange, to be published).

In addition, with the property managing company, it gives a sense to the buyers that all owners is not only restricted to behave under the deed of mutual covenant but with governance from third party, the management company, who act as a police and give them confidence in living without any intervention. Such perception also gives people attraction to buy the GCs units which induce more developments of GCs and management by developers’ subsidiaries (La Grange, to be published).

Moreover, the more the “gateless”, the lower the daily maintenance cost and make it easier for the property manager to manage (La Grange, to be published). Within limited budget (i.e. the management fee per square feet cannot be too high), the property manager has to provide various goods and services that the development profess to deliver (La Grange, to be published).

As a result, property manager has very high incentives in promoting GCs; and nowadays they are invited to give advices during the design stage of the development (La Grange, to be published).

Consumers / Potential Residents

GCs (i.e. the products) need buyers to consume so that the developers can get nominal return. Nevertheless, consumers with economic power (i.e. the rich, middle to upper class households) are capable

Page 10 of 20

to choose where and what forms of housing to reside in comparing with the lower income group; such rich sector would like to get rid of crimes and disenchanted with government and hence they are searching for a privatized utopia which offer a sense of neighborhood control with enhanced security and homogenous residents and under local governance that enforce high standards of property maintenance (McKenzie, 2003). Also, the desire for status, privacy and the investment potential of gated dwellings all form important aspects of the motivation to live behind gates (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). As a result, the coincidence between the GCs nature and the desire of potential residents not only produce a great market demand but also give high incentives to the developers to provide more GCs dwellings.

Media

According to oxford dictionary online, media refers to “the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers)” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/media). What they transmit is important to shape peoples’ perception and housing aspiration (Logan and Molotoch, 1987) such that through the media advertising (Vessilinov et al, 2007) for a newly build GCs, “it gives audience an exotic image like Spain with an exclusive and privileged lifestyle which targeting at selling the good life to the middle and upper class housing consumers” (Pow, 2009: 221). These entire messages aim to attract buyers and help the developers to boost sales; but more important is the faith transmitted behind the scene in which consumers believed they can start their dream life once they live in GCs (Logan and Molotoch, 1987) and ultimately reinforce the developers to provide more GC housing in accompanying the rising demand from potential consumers. In particular the Singapore, advertising often creates dream and fantasy to promote gated communities; “catchy slogans (‘A Cut Above the Rest’; ‘Affluent Living in Mediterranean Style’) as well as trendy condominium names (La Casa; Cote d’Azur; Stratford Court) – all of which evoke a sense of prestige and class” (Pow, 2009: 221).

Politician

Politician has been discussed in literatures about its importance in affecting the spread of GCs particularly in the US. As suggested by scholars that politician support the spread of GCs by utilising their authority power in affecting the zoning and urban plan by developing GCs in order to maximise the aggregate rent for the community (Logan & Molotch, 1987).

Such actor is powerful in shaping the final outcome of urban morphology because the government has to rely on the politicians to pass the agenda.

Apart from the above actors, in reality, what caused the spread of GCs are very complicated and not sole induced by actors only. Scholars also highlighted three others factors which should not be ignored in inducing the spread of GCs.

Economic factor

Redevelopment of urban and suburb cities in land scarce city led to development of high rise building. Raising income and economic growth of the state led to rising of middle class earners thus demand for housing beyond public flat. “In the 1970s as increasing affluence brought about by national economic growth led to the emergence of a group of middle-income earners (Pow, 2009: 220).

Page 11 of 20

Cultural factor

Particularly for the Asia, people consider private housing and gated communities as symbolic to social status and association of rich, privilege and image of success. “With the high prices of private real estates in Singapore, condominiums have certainly become ‘objects of envy’ and ‘symbols of successes for the aspiring middle class” (Pow, 2009: 223). The gates are symbolic to exclusive membership which is more the sense of differentiation and social enclave.

Sense of privilege instead of security

The crime rate is relatively low in some place but we do see the widespread of GCs, for example, the Singapore. Security is not the main factors that shape the formation of gated communities. Gated communities in Singapore represent gracious lifestyle and exclusive living. “The gates and walls signal more a sense of prestige and exclusive membership rather than security” (Pow, 2009: 221).

Gated Communities in Hong Kong

Development History of Hong Kong Housing

Prior to 1970s, only low rise like house or old tenements “Tong Lau” or single block buildings were built in HK. For those old tenements, shops were on ground floor and there were usually no gate at the entrance of the building. At that time, there was no housing policy governed by the government.

“Tong Lau” Picture - Source: http://www.yoho.hk/uploadfile/002/uploadfile/201205/20120523012528306.jpg From http://www.Travel.yoho.hk

Public housing was introduced by the government and built by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society whose objective is to provide affordable housing for the lower-income residents. The “gatedness” in public housing estates is in low level, i.e. entrance door with security system and security guard at the watch-house; no exclusive podium garden and club house, etc. for the residents. The public housing policy dates to around 1953, when a fire in Shek Kip Mei destroyed thousands of shanty homes and prompted the government to begin constructing homes for the poor.

Page 12 of 20

Public Housing Picture - Source : www.hk-place.com

From mid 1970s, developers have constructed large scale, multiple block private housing estates with extensive commercial and retail facilities and integrated with public transport (La Grange, to be published).

In Hong Kong, land is owned by the government and disposed by leasehold as similar in Singapore and China. Lease conditions specify development conditions such as land use, plot ratio, height, site coverage, in usual conditions specified in Outline Zoning Plans (OZP). The government decides in great detail how a site can be developed (and particularly what density and site coverage will be permitted) and then auctions it. It is also a significant financial resource from the interest on land (La Grange, to be published).

After the auction, developers acquire new land, more than 50% annual new housing stock brought to market nowadays is by local developers, e.g. Cheung Kong, Sun Hung Kei, Sino Land, Henderson, Wheelock, MTR, etc. At the same time, Greater and greater gatedness in newer estates has been found, especially in those high rise private housing estates, high levels of gatedness including larger and smaller estates, up-market and affordable estates (La Grange and Pretorius, 2009).

Modern Features of Gated Communities in Hong Kong

“Podium Style Developments” (normally including terminal of bus, mini-bus or MTR, shopping mall, club house and garden, etc.) usually have high rise residential blocks and estate facilities on top of the podium as to promote efficient use of land. In this podium style development, the public has free access to the shopping and commercial facilities at lower levels, and above, residents enter their estate via this common area (usually by lift) or there may be direct lift access at street level, or direct access, or vehicle access into car parks segregated into floors owned/rented by flat residents and short term parking for shoppers, or some combination depending on the layout or slope of the site (La Grange, to be published). Such design “is intended primarily for high-density residential developments. Commercial uses are always permitted on the lowest three floors of a building or in the purpose-designed non-residential portion of the existing building(La Grange, to be published).”

The articulation of other statutory instruments with the conditions of outline zoning plans with regard to mixed use sites also promote gating. Some of the amenities like recreational facilities for use and benefit of all the owners and occupiers of the domestic building or domestic part of the building are excluding from the calculation of Gross Floor Area (GFA) of a housing estate provided such uses are ancillary and directly related to the development or redevelopment. The informal guideline is that developers may add about 5% of GFA for ancillary uses (La Grange, to be published).

There is an obvious trend that the launch of new private housing estates are increasing their level of gatedness from 1980s to present, Table 6 lists some examples of developments built after 1980s:

Page 13 of 20

Table 6 : Examples of GCs built after 1980s in HK Site completion Developments Features Around 1997-1999 Metro City Plaza in

Tseung Kwan O (Po Lam MTR station)

Complex of residential blocks and club facilities above the podium; under large shopping mall below the podium and above MTR station and terminals of bus and taxi, etc.

Around 2003-2005 Banyan Garden, Liberté, Aqua Marine, The Pacifica (collectively known as “西九 四 小 龍 ”) in West Kowloon

4 small GCs forming a large GCs in West Kowloon. Cheung Kong, the developer of Banyan Garden had invited the famous singer Joey Yung for the advertising song “Proud of you” on TV- promoting the feeling of “desirable lifestyle” to the public.

Around 2006 The Arch (凱旋門) in Tsim Sha Tsui

Apart from GCs, the four towers with a sky club (a long swimming pool in the club) above 69 floors forming the shape of an arch which is similar as the shape of Arc de Triomphe (凱旋

門) in France. Promotion of prestigious by the developers

Source: Information from Centaline.com.hk, Midland.com.hk, property details see: http://hk.centanet.com/home/; http://app.midland.com.hk/residential_ebook

The “Senior Citizen Residence Scheme”

Gating has been also used to meet the housing needs of particular groups, such as the elderly, promote the use of underutilized land, and contribute to the revitalization of town centers by promoting mixed used projects (Manzi & Smith Bowers, 2005; Chao et al. 2003). We particularly studies Cheerful Court (彩頤居) in Ngan Tau Kok and Jolly Place (樂頤居) in Hang Hau of Tseung Kwan O launched in 2004; and Harmony Place in Shau Kei Wan launched in 2013 are a brand new housing program of let and sale respectively for the public which specially designed for the elders with “integrated and one stop” under the “Senior Citizen Residence Scheme”. They are constructed by Hong Kong Housing. Within the estate, there are fitness room, podium garden, indoor swimming pool, library, hobby rooms, polyclinic/nurse centre, multi-purpose hall, restaurant, coffee shop and convenient store, etc.

(http://www.cheers.org.hk, http://www.hkhs.com/sen_20040903/chi/jolly_place/news/news_tko.htm, http://www.harmonyplace.com.hk)

Urban Redevelopment in Hong Kong

“Gentrification” is used to describe the process of physical improvement of housing stocks, tenure renting to owning, house price rises, displacement or replacement original working class inhabitant. During the rehabilitation, there is a serious redevelopment friction as the rich and poor share the city. The

Page 14 of 20

redevelopments or rehabilitation of old buildings by Urban Renewal Authority (“URA’) and developers lead to reduction of poorer quality of affordable housing, shops and commercial premises (Ruth Glass, 1964).

Hong Kong government had implemented the Comprehensive Redevelopment Programme (CRP) which targeted to rebuild old estate that become dilapidated. Ngau Tau Kok Estate is a successful example of the CRP for sustaining the public housing programme by applying private sector management concept to achieve greater cost effectiveness such as outsourcing management and maintenance functions of public housing estate.

Ngau Tau Kok Estate was built before 1973 with total of 566 units in 57 blocks. The redevelopment programme was completed in 2009/10, the new development contain over 192 000 households with modern design and facilities, which aims to take care tenants of different ages including elderly centers, a youth centre, kindergarten, shops and super market, playground, open gardens and podium level garden.

To sustain the original communities, government had reserved some of the flat to rehousing residents affected by the CRP in reception estates located within the same district. The new Ngau Tau Kok Estate is a podium design housing estate with block level gated security. (Information and Community Relations Sub-division, From Lower to Upper Ngau Tau Kok Estate, 2009: 26).

How Gated is Hong Kong?

In consideration of the estate where we work as example, Parc Versailles is one of the largest luxury residential housing estates in Tai Po district which is a private housing estate with 37 buildings and contain total of 822 flats and car parks. The estate is an extremely gated estate which the estate is fenced by concrete wall and fence, restricted access to normal public, gated entrance, CCTV, 24hrs security guard patrolling and exclusive club house with facilities such as gym room, swimming pool, tennis court, etc. According to survey conducted to 30 residents in November 2013, all of the interviewed residents believed that the gates increased the sense of security and had protected their privacy. 80% of the interviewed residents agreed that GCs promotes privilege and exclusive lifestyle. All the interviewed residents also agreed that GCs promote self-governor and able to sustain the property. We hereby refer to the 3 different purposes of GCs suggested by Pow, Parc Versailles is a lifestyle community as the residents share the exclusive club house facilities. Parc Versailles is a prestige community which sustains high property value. Parc Versailles is also a security zone community which protects residents against from crime. We do not have clear distinction of its building characteristics, similar to many other GCs, Parc Versailles maintained an overlapped purpose.

Comparing Hong Kong to China, there are several similarities of the rapid growth of GCs. First, Hong Kong is part of China, the people easily accept the idea of GC as it is deep rooted in the culture. Second, the rapid growth of economy also lead to the housing development to meet the housing needs the GC. Third, the need of security, as gates has always been used.

As per definition of Vessilinov et al, GC has self-governing homeowner associations, Hong Kong truly apply to most buildings with Owners’ committee/ corporation. For strata-title properties in Hong Kong, there is a Deed of Mutual Covenant (“DMC”) which sets out rules and regulate the rights and liabilities of co-owners for all parts of the development. Incorporated owners (“IO”) is an independent legal entity representing the owners in the matters of building management. All owners of the building are members of the IO. Management Committee (“MC”) is a committee with members who selected from the IO. The

Page 15 of 20

number of members in a MC has been specified in the DMC or the Building Management Ordinance (“BMO”). Each term of a MC is 30 months in maximum and will be re-elected after the expiry. The function of a MC is similar to a board in a company. It is responsible for the daily affairs of the building, monitoring financial arrangement of IO, calling meeting and setting management fees. IO manages the building via its MC. Both Management Committee (“MC”) and owners are obligated to the resolutions passed in the IO meetings.

By forming the IO, owners can directly involve in managing the building like determine the amount of management fees, setting house rules of the building, selection of service providers, etc. IO also has the right to terminate the management company by resolution passed in an IO’s meeting and appoint a new management company if they are not satisfied with the existing one. In conclusion, the residents can enjoy a better living environment in the building by setting up an IO. (Source: Information from Land Registry & Jimmy KS Wong & Partners (law firm, see http://www.landreg.gov.hk/en/services/services_c.htm, http://www.jimmiewong.com/res-build.html))

With the economic growth overtime, we see Hong Kong has more and more GCs. To quantify, it is difficult to define from what time Hong Kong has became a “Gated” city; instead, we suggest Hong Kong is undergoing a continuous transition from less-gated to more-gated overtime, in other words, there is no distinct cutoff of the era of “Gated” in Hong Kong. In due course, we tabulated the security measures of different countries as discussed by different scholars in Table 7 below. We therefore found that Hong Kong is comparatively gated. However, to what extend is the city gated, we suggest that by distinguishing the “New modern buildings” from “Old low rise buildings”.

Gating Machine in Hong Kong

By decomposing the “Gating Machine” of Hong Kong, we see that Hong Kong government is neither support nor oppose to the development of GCs (La Grange, to be published), but she does control the building permission at the stage of planning and construction (i.e. permission of building plans). With the limited intervention from government, the rise of GCs is believed to be caused by the developers from supply side and consumers from demand side. Developers seek to maximize profit within limited land and high land price by mass production of GCs units while Consumers expected the privilege and “modern” design housing as an opportunity to invest as well as to fulfill the dream of “home ownership” concept particularly in Asians’ mind (Pow, 2009; La Grange, to be published). Real Estate Agents assist the transaction process together with Media advertising which act as lubricant to shape the Consumer perception and creates great market demand in Hong Kong (La Grange, to be published). In addition,

Table 7: Gating Communities features in different regions Hong Kong Singapore US China Access Barriers YES YES Yes Yes Surveillance CCTV YES YES Yes Security Guard YES YES Yes Owners Association YES YES Yes Source: Vesselinov, E., Cazessus, M. & Falk, W. (2007); Atkinson, R. & Blandy, S. (2005); McKenzie, E. (2003&2005); Pow, C. P. (2009); La Grange, A. (to be published)

Page 16 of 20

Property Manager has contributed to the development of GCs during the design stage so as to minimize the cost of management (La Grange, to be published). While for the politician, politicians in Hong Kong play an important but less obvious role in shaping the development of GCs as they can affect the landuse planning but we seldom see they object the develop of GCs. Other than that, similar to the case in Singapore, the economic growth results wealthier household which creates demand for modern luxury buildings with high security, grandly entrance with well management and GCs is the marketable product developers can supply to meet such great demand. We could foresee that the Comprehensive Redevelopment Programme, developers together with the strong consumer demand as main actors would shape the “Gating Machine” and would continue to gain their interest, in result the further spread of gated communities in Hong Kong.

Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages of forming Gated

Communities in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, the formation of gated communities has both positive and negative impact as well. Through the gated community development, Hong Kong government can benefit from highly profitable land sale and property tax (La Grange, to be published), it also benefit the government by shifting public maintenance duty through privatizing public place or the provision of public goods and services to the community members (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). In addition to the redevelopment process gated communities help revitalize and gentrify the area which helps to rebuild the city image to a sanitary and modern stylish urban morphology(La Grange, to be published). The redevelopment serve as growth machine which increase the HK’s GDP by providing more employment opportunity (i.e. more construction workers and property management staffs are needed) as well as promoting complementary industries (i.e. construction materials industries).

On the other hand, the formation of GC caused negative impact to the society. GCs created tension between management company and owners, even though gated communities contain homogeneous population in term of taste and of income, the needs and desire of the estate image and management concept can be very different, therefore many conflict and tension rise between management agent and owners (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). The gated communities led to reduction on civic trust as there are more and more complaints against the large repair bills for the common part or facilities which originally are public place (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). Furthermore, social segregation is resulted since the rich are economically more powerful than the poor and are able to choose the types and location of housing and hence the poor is left behind making a concentration of the rich on one hand and also a concentration of the poor on another hand thus create polarize effect (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).

Taking Kai Tak Garden, a podium level gated residential estate, located at Wong Tai Sin, Kai Tak Garden as example, the walkway along the residential estate was privatized to Kai Tak Garden’s owners thus the estate owner were required to perform cleaning and maintenance of the public walkway which created a lot of complains to the government and reduced civic trust as the owner considered the extra expenses are some kind of double taxation. The gated communities create social issue on reduction of social capital. Due to gentrification and urban redevelopment, the property value of the redeveloped region become more expensive and thus limited the chance for the poor to climb up the social ladder which created

Page 17 of 20

social tension and conflict (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).

The segregation issue exist in Hong Kong; regional example such as the peak and island road located at south district, those places are recognized as highly gated and secured premium residential area which connected the best international schools and so-call “rich-people only” club facilities that most of citizens are excluded. The segregation issue create social tension as the lower class citizen consider the segregation as somewhat being despised as the majority of people are being excluded by the small group of the rich. Recently some district council arguing the government should subsidize poor family kids who have excellence academic standard to enter international school to breach the gap of the social conflict.

Last but not least, the reason people move to gated communities come to fear of crime and sense of protection; however, with the increasingly hardened targets, crime will displace from the harden target to the softer target which is the concentration of the poor and hence affect the regional security (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). As we expected in Hong Kong, more crimes or illegal activities (e.g. prostitution, plantation of opium) concentrate in “Tong Lau” instead of “New modern buildings”.

Conclusion

Gated communities seemingly a global trend driven by gating coalition or gating machine mechanism. The gating up effect had spread in every major city thus becoming a new housing development issue and important phenomena. The mechanism argued to have impacts on the local society positively and negatively due to different driving factors according to scholar’s opinions.

Using Singapore as a case study, the gated communities in Singapore appear as a form of ‘club good’ that exists as part of the state’s urban development that meeting the middle and upper class housing aspiration. Arguably, the gated communities in Singapore are relatively less socially and spatially divisive than depicted elsewhere such as US and China resulting from strong government intervention and consumer’s preference on the gatedness.

In Hong Kong, the economic boom created the driving force which promoted the gated communities to form and spread in the recent decade. The “growth machine” refers to city’s growth in affluence led housing aspiration beyond public flat thus create the need of prestige and exclusive housing for differentiating the social enclave. Hong Kong is one of the examples of how the economic growth shaped the gated communities to form and spread in Hong Kong. The characteristic of GCs in Hong Kong is however, not driven by the sense of security as Hong Kong has a low crime rate. The GCs in Hong Kong appeared rather the sense of privacy and differentiation on social enclave and created the unique podium design housing due to limited land resources to maximizing land use in Hong Kong. Through the literature reviews, the main actors has elastic response to government policies, which could constrain the development of gated communities.

References 1. Vesselinov, E., Cazessus, M. & Falk, W. (2007) Gated communities and spatial immobility, Journal of

Urban Affairs, 29(2), pp. 109-127. 2. Logan, J.R. & Molotch, H. L. (1987) The city as growth machine, in J.R. Logan and H.L. Molotch,

Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of place. (Los Angeles: University Of California Press), pp. 50-98.

Page 18 of 20

3. McKenzie, E. (2003) Common interest housing in the communities of tomorrow, Housing Policy Debate, 14(1 and 2), pp. 203-234.

4. McKenzie, E. (2005) Constructing the pomerium in Las Vegas: a case study of emerging trends in American gated communities, Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 187-203.

5. Miao, P. (2003) Deserted streets in a jammed town: the gated community in Chinese cities and its solution, Journal of Urban Design, 8(1), pp. 45-66.

6. Pow, C. P. (2009) Public Intervention, private aspiration: gated communities and the condominisation of housing landscapes in Singapore, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(2), pp. 215-227.

7. Atkinson, R. & Blandy, S. (2005) Introduction: international perspectives on the new enclavism and the rise of gated communities, Housing Studies 20(2), pp. 177-186.

8. La Grange, A. (forthcoming) Hong Kong’s Gating Machine, to be published in Housing Studies [not yet published, a draft copy will be uploaded to Bb]

9. Pacione, M. (2006) Proprietary residential communities in the United States, Geographical Review, 96(4), pp. 543-565.

10. Genis, S. (2007) Producing elite localities: the rise of gated communities in Istanbul, Urban Studies, 44(4), pp. 771-798.

11. Manzi, T. & Smith-Bowers, B. (2005) Gated communities as club goods: segregation or social cohesion? Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 345-359.

12. Mycoo, M. (2006) The retreat of the upper and middle classes to gated communities in the poststructural adjustment era: the case of Trinidad, Environment and Planning A, 38, pp. 131-148.

13. La Grange, A. & Pretorius, F. (2009) Gating Hong Kong, paper presented at the European Network for Housing Research conference, Prague, 28 June – 1 July.

14. Chao, T. Y., Oc, T. and Heath, T. (2003) Creating a safer community for elder people in mixed use development – vertical gated community in the city centre, paper presented at the Gated Communities: Building Social Division or Safer Communities? The Teacher Building, Scottish Engineering Centre, Glasgow, 18-19 September.

15. Ruth Glass (1964), London’s housing needs: statement of evidence to the Committee on Housing in Greater London, Centre for Urban Studies Report (Centre for Urban Studies (London), Report 5, pp, ix, 97

16. Lisa Li, Race Issues in Singapore: Is the HDB Ethnic Quota becoming a farce, 2011; http://seelanpalay.blogspot.hk/2011/04/race-issues-in-singapore-is-hdb-ethnic.html

17. (http://www.cheers.org.hk, http://www.hkhs.com/sen_20040903/chi/jolly_place/news/news_tko.htm, http://www.harmonyplace.com.hk)

18. (information from Centaline.com.hk, Midland.com.hk, property details see http://hk.centanet.com/home/, http://app.midland.com.hk/residential_ebook)

19. Information and Community Relations Sub-division, From Lower to Upper Ngau Tau Kok Estate, 2009 http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/common/pdf/about-us/publications-and-statistics/UNTK.pdf)

20. Information from Land Registry & Jimmy KS Wong & Partners (law firm, see http://www.landreg.gov.hk/en/services/services_c.htm, http://www.jimmiewong.com/res-build.html)

21. Public Housing Picture – Source : www.hk-place.com 22. “Tong Lau” Picture - Source: http://www.Travel.yoho.hk 23. “media”: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/media

Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20