Hong Kong: A Pretty Good Role Model

Royal Gazette Opinion, Thursday 30 June 2005

At one of the recent public meetings on sustainable development, a member of the audience lamented the rapid pace of development in Bermuda. “Do you want to live in Hong Kong?” he asked.

“Stop kidding yourselves,” wailed another man. “Hong Kong is here already.”

If only that were true. Bermuda may share some of the same pressures on its open space as Hong Kong, along with a colonial history and a similar climate. But as far as sustainable development is concerned, we could learn a lot from our Asian cousin.

If you’ve never been there, you probably imagine Hong Kong to be a modern-day Gotham City – a hot, dirty, smelly place where millions of inhabitants live cheek-by-jowl in tottering skyscrapers, while Triad gangs divide up the dark, narrow streets below. I certainly used to.

That’s why when my company sent me there for nine months several years ago, I didn’t want to go. At the time I lived in a pleasant town in London’s commuter belt, with easy access to the countryside. Hong Kong sounded like the antithesis of much of what I loved about my home. I hadn’t even eaten Chinese food before.

When I arrived, I discovered that Hong Kong was indeed hot, dirty, and smelly. I hated it. Fetid smells hung thickly in the polluted air. The locals were rude and my expat colleagues did nothing but work and drink. I found myself toiling late into the night, and having to contend with lizards and cockroaches when I finally made it back to my tiny, sweaty apartment.

Over time, however, my misconceptions dissolved. Hong Kong is no Gotham City. Yes, there are Triads and organised crime, but street crime is very low.

The city has the most awe-inspiring skyline in the world. No exaggeration. I’ve stood for hours on the promenade that runs along the southern edge of Kowloon, gazing across the harbour towards the skyscrapers lining the north side of Hong Kong Island and the undulating, tree-cloaked hills behind. It’s a breathtaking panorama, equally impressive at night: proof that a forest of glass and concrete Redwoods does not have to be ugly.

But one of the most surprising things about Hong Kong is how much open space it has. And I’m not talking about the roadside strips of grass that pass for parks in Bermuda. Despite the impression you may have of Hong Kong as an urban hell, its built-up area is actually concentrated in a relatively small area. The rest is open space. And decent open space to boot, the kind you can go hiking in.

Consider Hong Kong Island. At roughly 31 square miles, three of which is reclaimed land, it’s only a little bigger than Bermuda. In 2003, 1.26 million people lived there. Yet its interior is filled with forest and the occasional reservoir, through which wind hiking trails of varying difficulties. Except for the places where the trails crest the mountainous spine that runs down the Island’s back, there’s not a skyscraper in sight. Most of the time you wouldn’t believe that you’re hiking in one of the most densely populated parts of the world.

Our problem is not that we’re too much like Hong Kong, it’s that we’re not enough like it.

We want to have our cake and eat it too. We don’t want to build on our open space, but we really don’t want to live in an apartment block. Instead, we cover our Island with low, houses whose growth sometimes only seems constrained by the borders of our golf courses. About the only building-free vista to be had in Bermuda is from the Queen’s bedroom in Government House.

Something has to give. If we really want to preserve our open space, as the recent furore about the location of the new hospital suggests we do, then we need to start building up.

The first step is to get rid of the archaic restriction that no building in Hamilton may be taller than the eaves of the Anglican cathedral. The second is to start building some attractive high-rise housing there.

This should be aimed at young Bermudians and expats and should be straightforward and cheap – no need for gyms, swimming pools or in-house delis. As I discovered in Hong Kong, the single expat spends little time at home. Many would probably prefer to be only a short walk from the office in the morning and a drunken stagger back from the bars at night. Some will already be accustomed to apartment block living. It would certainly be better for Bermuda if they were not occupying one- or two-storey family homes in the outlying parishes.

We can either watch as our remaining open space disappears, or start building up. Hong Kong seems like a pretty good model to follow to me.

Comments

[Martin on 30.06.05 at 09:56]

You may be right, i.e. that we have to go upwards. The alternative seems to be putting a limit on the population size of the Island, i.e. effectively maintaining the status quo..

My concern though, is back to what you said...who wants to live in "my tiny, sweaty apartment".

Some of the rentals here at the low $ end, can be pretty tight in terms of space in any event, and not in exactly a salubrious environment.

Sardine-can living might be fine for some - but not for everyone. We all move forward hopefully, and like Student accomadation, it might be fun at the time, but you don't want to go back to it.

The difficulty is finding a balance between sustainability and all the other demands on the Island each of which will have a different agenda and rate of change.

As it seems unlikely that a balance can be struck, then it follows that something has to give.

The question is what?

[Upward and Onward on 30.06.05 at 10:15]

You make a very intriguing argument, Limey. It makes no sense for us to complain about keeping precious land, but then not be willing to change in order to keep it. Most were so adamantly against the hospital taking some of Botanical Garders, but won't think twice about clearing out a plot of land for their own personal gain. I don't think that the lack of support really has anything to do with caring for the environment as much as it does for selfishness.

I think high rising apartments are a good idea, but Bermuda does need to make sure that if they do that, that they don't keep the trend of overpricing everything.

After experiencing living in a high rise apartment complex while away in school, I already know how it is and am used to it. I'm also pretty sure that most can adapt to that environment.

How can we make our government see the light?

[boogie on 30.06.05 at 10:22]

Hey Limey! You're becoming very Bermudianised, you know. Did you spell foetid that way or did the Gazette change it? Just curious LOL.

[Raptor on 30.06.05 at 13:26]

Limey: "...start building some attractive...." That's the issue for me. There is some astoundingly bad, ugly, awful architecture in Bermuda--the bank buildings to start with, one of which is a nauseating putridly coloured monstrosity, and the other of which is a horribly sad unimaginative use of space right on the Harbour. It's a real shame when the very scale of the island and its architectural traditions aren't carried forward into new building. Some basic sensitivity to the beauty of old Bermuda buildings would be a relief to see. Look at the nightmare put up down in Flatts! And why not have more colour while we're at it. I don't see why so many buildings/houses are now painted beige/tan. It's the aesthetic rape of the island that is the problem, not whether a building can go up another storey or two.

[Git on 30.06.05 at 14:21]

Raptor,

I agree with you to a point, particularly regarding some of the older city buildings you mentioned.

I too feel it is important to preserve our unique building traditions. On the other hand, I don't think the Bermudian architectural 'vernacular' lends itself well to large scale buildings. Case in point: the tecnicolour ACE Global HQ which I find to be hideous. To me it looks like the headquarters of a Floridian theme park, or perhaps our answer to the Excaliber hotel in Vegas.

I see no problem with more modern hi-rise developments in Hamilton, as long as they are capped at a reasonable height and Front Street is kept looking as quaint and traditional as possible. (seen the plans for the Cooper's building anyone?)

The outlying parishes, however, need protection from developers. That travesty in Flatts is a prime example. We can't keep carving up every piece of open grass to build condos.

I reckon we will see more interest in city living over the next few years.

[Taggy on 30.06.05 at 14:31]

The key is urban vs rural living. The corporation of Hamilton (or whatever the entity is called) should address this issue. If we don't want the beauty of Bermuda spoilt, we need to build elegance.
It's not about whether to build up, but where and when.

[James on 30.06.05 at 14:36]

As far as building 'up' goes. Its simply a question of now or later. I prefer now - before all the space is gone.

[Raptor on 30.06.05 at 15:50]

Git: re. "ACE Global HQ" --I agree with you on that one too. It's as though they slapped some Bermuda stuff on top of .... (can't figure out what to call it!). Architecture can be so wonderful. Why is Bermuda often so challenged on this?

[Sir Boss on 30.06.05 at 16:13]

Population pressure might dictate that a golf course or two might need be sacrificed for housing...Does Bermuda really need so many courses? Are any government owned and little used?

[jake on 30.06.05 at 17:24]

Funny, I like the Ace building - alot.

I think the trend to make everything look like a cottage is just dumb though. I actually like the tall glass and steel buildings. They are clean lines and can be very efficient for the developer. Yes, I like things to be profitable.

I also agree that you cannot overprice one of the apartments if you want them to be well received. Look at the stark difference from Lopes place and John Swan's. All sold - still struggling.

Phil, I disagree with you on the gym though. The gym gives residents a way to stay fit safely and in my experience will be used extensively if put in place with no additional charge. It is also a way to meet your neighbours over time. That is one thing that modern cities have on us are the the cabs. Cabs and trains mean you need less cars. Few average people in NYC have need of a car.

I am against sacrificing golf courses for houses. It will only encourage more poorly thought out layout and ineffcient use of space. We can convert them to parks, but the land available is more than enough to meet the need.

Just go up!

[question on 30.06.05 at 18:53]

"Case in point: the tecnicolour ACE Global HQ which I find to be hideous. " -Git

I LOOOVE THE ACE BUILDING

[Raptor on 30.06.05 at 19:29]

I like the ACE Global HQ a lot more than the banks!

[ace on 30.06.05 at 21:33]

Ace HQ looks great but I think they needed to stick to one colour. Neat idea to do the two-tone thing, but it cheapens the look on such a large building.

[question on 30.06.05 at 23:14]

i like the multi-colour look... something different.

as for cheapening the look, cheap is the last thing that comes to my mind when i look at that building :)

[The Limey on 02.07.05 at 12:12]

boogie

The Gazette changed it. No idea why. 'Fetid' and 'Foetid' are both permissible spellings AFAIK.

However if 'foetid' is the Bermudian way, perhaps I should adopt that spelling from now on!