Abstract
Public–private partnerships formed to carry out urban renewal activities are often criticized as property-led initiatives with little respect for the community and individuals concerned. Partnerships need participation from the partners, but in the course of participation, power politics emerge and evolve, leading to potential problems for the partnership governance structure. A more interesting issue is whether individual property owners at the renewal site can actually participate in this partnership and contribute to the renewal outcome. This paper shows that despite the call for more public/community involvement, most property owners are risk-averse. That is, when the monetary compensation meets their expectations, there is little incentive for them to participate, especially when the scheme is geared towards the investment profit of the scheme. The paper finds, based on a case study in Hong Kong, that individual owners tend to choose not to participate, with a view to maximizing their benefits. On the other hand, the request for further participation by owners never ceases. This leads to a demand for different forms of participation, such as the flat-for-flat model; the results are yet to be seen.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For details on the Urban Renewal Authority and the history and evolution of the then Land Development Corporation, see http://www.ura.org.hk/html/c100000e1e.html
For details on the Town Planning Board of Hong Kong, see http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/whats_new/whats_new.html
Before 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was still under British rule, and the Governor of Hong Kong was an administrator appointed by the British government to run Hong Kong.
References
Adams, D., & Hastings, E. M. (2001). Assessing institutional relations in development partnerships: The land development corporation and the Hong Kong government prior to 1997. Urban Studies, 38(9), 1473–1492.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of community participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.
Booth, P. (2005). Partnerships and networks—The governance of urban regeneration in Britain. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 257–269.
Uitermark, J. (2003). ‘Social Mixing’ and the management of disadvantaged neighbourhoods: The Dutch policy of urban restructuring revisited. Urban Studies, 40(3), 531–549.
Acknowledgments
The author is very grateful for the information provided by Mr. Ian Wong of the Urban Renewal Authority of Hong Kong. This paper was partially funded by a research grant from the Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir’s Eco-Environments, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, L.H. Urban renewal partnerships—is there really room for participation from individual owners? A case study of Hong Kong. J Hous and the Built Environ 27, 517–526 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9279-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9279-4