A Comparison for the Layout Planningof the Public Housing in China andSingapore to Explore How to Improvethe Living Standard for Low-income
1 Introduction:
Housing is one of the most basic needs for humans.
Although in the past thirty years, Chinese residents'
living conditions has changed tremendously, China still
suffers from an interruption between housing price and
citizens’ affordability. The housing area per person
increased from 6.7 square meters in 1978 to 36 square
meters in 2012, in addition nearly one third citizens
live in the regular house ( Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences , 2012 , China housing development report ) . Chinese
government aims to promote urban shantytowns and
inhabitable houses transformation in the ‘12th Five Year
Plan’. There are several strategies taken by the
government,such as the policy of housing security,build
the affordable housing and low-rent houses for improving
living standard for the poor. Therefore comparing the
living issue with other countries, there are still some
considerable points , not only about the policies. The
faults on plan choosing and layout may lead to some
social problems. To design affordable houses should
consider the needs of people on low-incomes and the
balance of population structure. This project firstly
compare the two different public housing estates in China
and Singapore, then analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of the two public housing, finally assesses
the solution of public housing design.
2 Definition of Public Housing
Public housing is houses built by the government. The
type of public housing is usually flats and has
affordable selling price or rent for a large majority of
citizens, especially for low-income persons. Although the
common goal of public housing in different country is to
provide affordable houses, the details and the criteria
for allocation are various different situations.
3 Failure Example:Tin Shui Wai in Hong Kong
Tin Shui Wai in 1992 Tin Shui Wai in 2005
Tin Shui Wai New Town is located in northwestern of Hong
Kong. It is the second built new town in Yuen Long
District of New Territories and the eighth built new town
of Hong Kong. It comprises an area of 4.3 km². As of
2011, the New Town has a population of 287,901and the
density of the New Town is 66,953/km2.
The early period Planning concept of the Tin Shui Wai New
Town was built two large-scale park in the north and
south area, in addition the residential area and the
infrastructures built around the park. Ng Kang-ching
describe the New Town was constructed on 2.4 km² of
reclaimed wetland and fishponds in addition conceived of
housing 140,000 people in 1987. The government began to
develop the south part in 1990 and in the same year, the
land reclamation process in the New Town was completed.
The first public housing estates was finished building in
1993. There are also private housing estates in south.
However, when the government developed the northern town,
they launched the construction of 85,000 housing units
per year housing policy. Therefore, the north built extra
7,000 public housing. As the result of this, the
population of the New Town increased rapidly thus the
density and the building height of the north part higher
than the south part. It was criticized that the public
facilities in the north cannot follow the rise of the
population. Over 85% residents in the north live in
public housing, and large amount of them are new
immigrant families, which family members lived in Shen
Zhen ever and have admission to Hong Kong for family
reunion. Many of their family formation are old husband
and young wife, which the men are low-income.
There are several negative factors in Tin Shui Wai New
Town. Employment should be considered in first place. The
great majority of new immigrant families are low
education level and difficult to find jobs near their
home. In addition, the transport cost to the central city
is very expensive and unaffordable. It is accessible this
situation lead to a vicious cycle of people’s living
standard. Due to the lack of community support and
difficulty of adjust environment for the new immigrant
families, numerous serious family and social issues,
which including mental illness, domestic violence and
suicide occurs, happened in the town. Hence, reputation
of the area went down in Hong Kong. Mrs Carrie Lam who is
the Director of Social Welfare labeled Tin Shui Wai "City
of Misery" in July 2006 because of the accumulation of
events.
4 Succeed Example:Public Housing in Singapore
Overview of Bukit Batok, an example Woodlands New Town built justbeside the of large-scale new towns built from the Causeway to Johor Bahru.ground up by the HDB.
To solve the problem of hosing lack in 1960s, Singapore
government established the Housing and Development Board
that is responsible to resettled the residents into low-
cost state-built housing. During these years development,
today as much as 82% of citizens choose to live in public
housing supplied by HDB (HDB History. Retrieved 28 June
2013). Singapore's public housing system may be most
successful housing security system around the world.
Compared with other countries, public housing in
Singapore cannot consider as a signal of low living
quality or poverty. Even though they have cheaper price
than private house, they build in high quality and
provide to middle incomes. These housing estates are
located in outskirts of city and constructed as self-
contained satellite towns with hospitals, schools,
shopping malls, supermarkets, sports and leisure centers.
To some extent, the housing estate is a self-sufficiency
system of city. Because of this, although the majority of
Singapore people live in public housing, very few of them
are under the poverty line.
Based on the plan concept of public housing in Singapore,
every HDB town design is very scientific and rational.
They locate in the rural area instead of the business and
commercial districts. Each HDB town is self-sustainable
with sufficient supporting public infrastructure so that
there is no need to go to city center to meet the common
needs of daily life. Even employment can be found in in
several towns that are near the industrial districts.
Singapore has a very satisfying comprehensive public
transportation system. Subways and buses used in
combination provide convenient conditions for the
residents travel. On the basis of general design
principle, there is a metro station near public house
within eight minutes walking distance in addition there
is a bus station within four hundred meters to make
travel conveniently. Based on this, majorities of public
housing build around the public transport lines, which
saves residents travel costs and relieve downtown traffic
pressure. This also attracts more citizens to choose
public housing.
5 Evaluations and Experience
To compare Tin Shui Wai New Town in Hong Kong and HDB
town in Singapore, it
is easy to find some similarities. They are both
satellite towns of the main part of city and big
residential estates with large population. By analyzing
Tin Shui Wai New Town, there are three main reasons of
low living standard and tragedy happenings. Firstly, the
Hong Kong government recomposes the New Town plan to
contain more low-incomes for political reasons without
considering the feasible capacity of the residential
estates. In addition, they ignore the population
structure of the residential estates. According to the
provisions of the Hong Kong Property, flats have looser
restrictions on the household population and the public
housing must accommodate more people. Except the high
density of public housing estates, Tin Shui Wai New Town
also has distant location form city center, high cost for
transportation and limited employment opportunities.
Furthermore, the government has been criticized for
insufficient level of services and facilities to fulfill
the rapid population growth in Tin Shui Wai. Some people
argue that the large number of new immigrants from
Mainland China in the New town, which struggling to
adjust to the social dynamics in Hong Kong, contributes
to the family tragedies.
Depend on the residential relocation economics analysis,
there are four factors affect low-income people choose
where to live. Firstly is employment factor, the main
reason of low-level employability of the low-incomes may
be low education level and old age. Therefore they may
suffer unstable employment and wish to have steady living
standard for the basis of life. As a result of this
situation, the planner should consider to locate the
public housing estates near the urban conventional
service sector or the industry districts to avoid a
mismatch between living and employ. Secondly, the family
income limits persons’ way of travel. The low-income
group prefers to choose inexpensive transportation such
as walk, bicycles, buses and undergrounds. In condition
of the cheap house usually build in remote areas, low-
income families travel inconvenient and cost extra living
expenses, some of the low-income families cannot improve
their living standard even reduce it. So the site
selection of the public housing must near the transit hub
and have great bus line systems to decrease the cost of
transportation for low-incomes. Thirdly, social supports
and services are very important for the low-income group.
The scope of their social activities may be confine to
the residential area and the nearby parts. To maximize
the compression of household expenses, they choose to see
a doctor, go to school and meet the daily needs in the
neighboring area. In addition they extremely rely on the
public facilities. Consequently the government should
plan more prudent public expenditure on infrastructures
for public housing. The layout of public housing should
near the areas that already have comprehensive public
facilities or try to establish the most-inclusive
infrastructures for new public housing estates. It can
ensure low-income people go to supermarkets, schools and
clinics conveniently with low cost. The final factor is
social space. To gain more information about employment,
low-income should closely contact with others. In
addition others also need the services from cleaners,
attendants, labors and housekeepers. Therefore, to
promote the integration of different level people is not
only for improvement of low-income group but also for
others who need services.
To draw a conclusion, the basic principal is to mingle
the public housing and private house justifiably in
addition to avoid the hierarchy isolation. In city
center, the government can renovate and reform the urban
villages. Moreover, it is necessary to build satellite
town with convenient transportation system and enough
infrastructures.
6 Conclusions
Conclusions main idea:
1.repeat thesis: Considerations of public housing – low-income needs
& population structure balance
2.summary of main idea: experiences learn from the examples
Reference:
Hong Kong Housing Society, http://www.hkhs.com/
HDB Info WEB, http://www.hdb.gov.sg
Public housing : Current trends and future developments, Clapham
D.&English J. 1987, Publisher: London: Croom Helm,
Shelton B., Karakiewicz J. & Kvan T., 2011, The Making of
Hong Kong, Routledge Press
TEO P. & HUANGA S.,1996, Sense of Place in Public Housing: a Case
Study of Pasir Ris, Singapore
Aratani Y., 2010, Public housing revisited: Racial differences, housing
assistance, and socioeconomic attainment among low-income families
Yuen B., Yeh A. et al, 2006, High-rise Living in
Singapore Public Housing, Urban Studies
Brams R.M., Equity and efficiency in the allocation of public housing to
eligible families
Top Related