The devastating fire at Wang Fuk Court shook Hong Kong, leaving thousands of residents homeless overnight. While some have found temporary shelter in hotels, transitional housing, or with family and friends, the government has established a relief fund and contributed HK$300 million as seed funding. In total, approximately HK$3.3 billion in donations have been raised to provide affected families with living allowances, condolence payments, funeral expenses, and emergency aid.
The real challenge lies in addressing the psychological trauma of the victims and their future housing arrangements, as financial compensation alone will not ease residents’ anxiety or reluctance to revisit the site of their former home.
Discussions about the residents' future housing options have centred on three main solutions: repairing the original site, demolishing and rebuilding on the original site, or relocating the development to a new site.
Pros and Cons of the Three Housing Solutions
1. Repairing the Original Site
Repairing the original buildings is less costly and allows residents to maintain their existing community networks. However, the repair costs could be significant, and some buildings may have suffered structural damage. More importantly, many residents may refuse to return to a place associated with trauma. Incoming Legislative Council Member for the engineering sector, Aaron Bok Kwok-ming, noted that if the foundation of Wang Fuk Court is intact, rebuilding on the original site after demolition would be more cost-effective. However, he emphasised that the government must also consider the psychological impact on the victims. Even if repairs are technically feasible, the reluctance of residents to move back could lead to a situation where the units remain vacant, creating a "ghost town."
2. Demolishing and Rebuilding on the Original Site
Demolishing and rebuilding offers the opportunity to completely redesign the buildings and improve safety standards. However, the process could take at least seven years, by which time many residents may have already settled elsewhere and be unwilling to return.
The lengthy rebuilding process involves planning, tendering, construction, and inspections. During this time, victims would need alternative housing, significantly increasing their living costs. Additionally, if residents establish new social networks and lifestyles in other communities, their willingness to return would naturally diminish. While rebuilding addresses safety concerns, the high time and financial costs, coupled with the risk of residents not returning, make this option a challenging one.
3. Relocating to a New Site
Relocating to a new site eliminates the psychological burden of returning to the old location. However, finding suitable land in Hong Kong is notoriously difficult. It also requires significant public funds and involves complex issues, such as land premiums. Bok estimates that if the government chooses to rebuild on a new site, the costs—including land leveling, transportation infrastructure, and utility installations—could be more than three times higher than rebuilding on the original site.
To address the issue of land availability, DAB Chairman and New Territories North East Legislative Council Member Gary Chan suggested a potential site near Fu Shin Estate or behind Fu Heng Estate. He also identified a nearby temporary bus depot that could be redeveloped and expanded. It was reported that the party met with Deputy Financial Secretary Michael Wong yesterday to formally submit a proposal for the reconstruction of Wang Fuk Court.
Alternative Solutions and Innovative Proposals
Drawing from past disaster responses, some suggest that the government or the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) could step in to acquire property rights, referencing the approach used after the 2010 Ma Tau Wai Road building collapse. In that case, the URA offered compensation 18 months after the tragedy, with a price of HK$9,785 per square foot. The affected site was later redeveloped into ‘eResidence’, which took over 10 years to complete. However, the benefit of this approach was that affected residents received immediate compensation, allowing them to secure new homes in the market without the need to wait for reconstruction or return to the original site.
Sai Kung District Council member Christine Fong proposed another option, inspired by the aftermath of the 1972 June 18 landslide on Kotewall Road. She suggested demolishing all eight towers of Wang Fuk Court and converting the site into a memorial park or commemorative facility. New housing for the affected residents could then be rebuilt in other locations within Tai Po. This plan is estimated to cost around HK$6 billion, which, with combined donations and government subsidies, seems financially feasible.
Meanwhile, Centaline Property founder Shih Wing-ching offered a different perspective in his editorial. He suggested that homeowners return their property rights to the Housing Authority in exchange for compensation based on the land value of their units. This, combined with insurance payouts covering construction costs, would allow residents to purchase similar homes in nearby areas. However, Shih noted that Wang Fuk Court is a Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) estate, and for units with unpaid land premiums, the compensation amount might be significantly reduced. This could make it difficult for residents to afford private housing in the same district, especially given the limited availability of second-hand HOS flats. To address this, he proposed allowing affected residents to have priority in selecting units during the next round of HOS sales.
Conclusion
In summary, the three main approaches to handling Wang Fuk Court’s aftermath each have their pros and cons. Reconstruction on the original site would take at least seven years, and the psychological trauma experienced by residents may deter them from returning, potentially leaving the rebuilt estate underutilised.
Repairing the original site preserves the community network but comes with significant costs, often in the billions. On the other hand, relocating to a new site reduces psychological resistance but involves costs that could be three times higher than rebuilding on the original location. The real question lies not just in technical feasibility but in the financial burden—should it be borne by the government, taxpayers, or the affected homeowners?
Ultimately, the focus should shift from purely monetary compensation to the proper resettlement of disaster victims. Flexible solutions that align with residents' preferences are essential to helping them move forward and rebuild their lives.
Like
