Hong Kong and Singapore have had comparable GDP per capita for decades and experienced similar economic growth since the ’80s. And yet Singapore is much more successful in providing its residents with a better living environment.
Singapore ranked first in smart-city ranking in 2021, whereas Hong Kong ranked 41st out of 118 major cities. Relative to Singapore, Hong Kong received an “A” in its technology, but it performed poorer in areas concerning green-space creation, environment, and mobility. What can the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government do to improve residents’ living environment in the post-pandemic era?
To begin, let us examine the differences between the urban development plans of these two twin cities.
Hong Kong urban development can be improved by engaging the end users at the planning stage. The resultant greater public satisfaction will more than compensate for the extra time in their construction
Singapore has more accessible green space for walking, biking or hiking. Despite Singapore being smaller, with 719 square kilometers as opposed to 1,100 square km for Hong Kong, Singaporeans can visit various beautiful parks and open spaces near where they live in different regions at any time. In Hong Kong, public green spaces account for 40 percent of the total land area. Unfortunately, most time-pressed Hong Kong residents find many recreational spaces to be inaccessible because it takes up to an hour on average to reach a large country park.
If there were more conveniently accessible green spaces, Hong Kong residents would have healthier recreational options other than spending their weekends in shopping malls, restaurants, and karaoke or beer bars.
Singapore has a higher population density than Hong Kong, and yet 80 percent of Singaporeans live in affordable public-housing flats with sizes that range from 36 square meters (a two-room flat) to 175 square meters (a five-room flat). In contrast, because of a severe shortage of buildable land, only 45 percent of Hong Kong residents live in public housing. Because of sky-high private property prices, over 200,000 Hong Kong residents share tiny subdivided private flats that are claustrophobic and less than ideal for healthy living.
Currently, the average waiting time for a public flat in Hong Kong is 5.9 years. Affordable housing is a basic requirement for quality living that the Hong Kong SAR government must strive for.
Singapore is hot all year round, and it is trying to develop a new generation of innovative bus stops that aim to be cooler and safer. The prototype of these smart bus stops, the “Airbitat Oasis Smart Bus Stop” built in 2018, can deliver energy-efficient air cooling and purification, cooling the air to as low as 24 C and removing harmful airborne particles such as PM2.5. To conserve energy, each smart bus stop automatically adjusts its cooling cycle based on the temperature of the surrounding air and the number of people waiting at the bus stop. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Transport Department focused on mobile technological solutions by launching its all-in-one HKeMobility mobile apps in 2021, offering useful transportation information for planning travel arrangements. These mobile apps are valuable, but do not by themselves promote comfort and safety.
To improve the quality of living, Hong Kong should develop a coordinated urban plan by taking a holistic approach.
First, urban development must begin with a common vision. It is encouraging to note that Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has proposed the East Lantau Metropolis project, a massive reclamation plan to create at least 1,000 hectares of land that can house 1.1 million people. But this plan faces many criticisms, ranging from its exorbitant development cost, environmental concerns, and its 14-year completion time. Perhaps this plan is the answer to Hong Kong’s future land needs, allowing time for alternative proposals, developing short-term solutions, and getting more buy-in from the public to create a common vision for developing a better future.
Second, sustainable urban planning must take children into consideration. The Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority’s mission is “to make Singapore a great city to live, work and play”. Interestingly, Hong Kong’s Planning Department’s mission is “to make Hong Kong a better place to live and work in”. By omission, Hong Kong’s development plan may not fully capture the concept of “play” as an important component that constitutes a higher quality of life, especially for children.
Third, urban planning and smart-city development must be people-centric. The Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Concept Plan 2001 was intended to develop a plan that balances the goals of livability and economic growth. But its success can be attributed to the constructive feedback from the public and the seamless coordination with other related departments such as the Land Transport Authority. Specifically, after receiving feedback from the public, the URA revised its plan to include green infrastructure consisting of green buildings that conserve energy; green mobility features such as walking paths; and green habits such as recycling and waste reduction practices. Engaging the public can certainly slow down the development process as experienced by Singapore URA as well as Hong Kong’s Development Bureau. However, getting public buy-in upfront can result in development plans that benefit all.
Like Singapore, Hong Kong urban development can be improved by engaging the end users at the planning stage. The resultant greater public satisfaction will more than compensate for the extra time in their construction. If there is a will, there is a way.
Christopher S. Tang is a university distinguished professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Kenneth S. Tang is chairman of the Spatial Data Infrastructure Committee, Smart City Consortium, and adjunct associate professor at the University of Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.