Batgung - Accommodation

Need rural and easy commute!

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:51:23 +0000

Hello all,

I'm currently considering a role in HK, but my partner is an adventure tour guide who loves the country (think white water rafting, kayaking etc). What opportunities would there be for us to combine my city-living and his need for green? I wouldn't need to be in Central every day but wouldn't really like to commute more than an hour.

Is this too big an ask for HK?

Thanks for all your help!

Michelle

Noise - Mount Parker Lodge

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:16:20 +0000

we're just back from Canada, important to look for quiet environment with lots of fresh air. We're considering Mount Parker Lodge in Quarry Bay, but wonder if there'll be any disturbance during sleep(esp in early morning) caused by noise from early morning strollers on the Mount Parker Road nearby and from the planes. If you're staying in the neighourhood, grateful if you can share your experience.

llam

Which is the best flat to live in?

mrb — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:00:00 +0000

You've found an area of Hong Kong you like, and chosen a development you're happy with. Now how do you choose the best flat?

Here are some questions to think about:

High / Low / Middle floor?

An easy one to start with. In most cases I'd go with a mid- to high-floor. You're further away from roads meaning less noise and pollution, and they are often brighter with a better view.

The ground floor might appeal if you get some courtyard space accessible from the flat. But take a careful look out on the courtyard to see if it is used as your higher neighbours' litter bin!

Live at the top?

The top floor is a special case, as it often includes access to the roof above your flat. A summer evening drink on the roof can be a great way to unwind after work – or how about inviting friends over for a barbeque? You've got the chance to grow plants if you're missing having a garden, and many people use the roof to free up space in the flat, e.g. the washing machine and other bulky items can be moved onto the roof under a simple lean-to cover.

What can go wrong? Leaks are the biggest worry, especially during the summer's downpours. Take a careful look at the ceiling for signs of damp or water damage – this is a time when seeing a flat that hasn't been redecorated is a good thing. The summer sun can be a problem too, making the flat hot in the summertime. If possible visit on a sunny day to check for yourself.

It's also worth asking yourself honestly how much you'd actually use the roof. We look out over a lot of older buildings. Some owners really go to town and get full use from the roof, others never seem to go up on the roof at all. (Perhaps they don't like being seen by people in the higher flats?) You'll pay a considerable premium for the roof, so make sure you'll really use it.

Which layout?

We live in an older development (18 years old). It has just two floor plans to choose from, big or small. Modern developments like the Belchers have four different floor plans per block and six blocks, so there are over twenty different layouts to choose from. If there are several that meet your requirements, it's worth taking time to compare them.

Lived-in & scruffy, or freshly redecorated?

If you're not buying in a brand new development, you'll be looking at flats that show the wear & tear of the previous owners. Unless they have just redecorated the flat to make it look more appealing.

I'd choose the scruffy flat over the redecorated.

If someone has redecorated to sell it, they'll likely want a higher price to claim back their costs. Then if you want to redecorate it again to match your tastes, you'll end up paying twice.

Even if you think you can move in without redecorating, be careful. If the owner has redecorated to sell, they'll have asked the decorator to do the cheapest work that will make it look good. The likelihood is that things will start looking scruffy soon after you've moved in. Finally, fresh redecoration can hide signs of water damage and other problems that you'd rather know about.

The only problem seeing a scruffy flat is that it can put you off living in what might really be the perfect flat for you. So work on your imagination - what would the flat be like to live in after you've changed the current orange & brown paint scheme?

What view?

One of our firm requirements for a flat is that we're not looking straight into the next building's windows. It doesn't seem to bother a lot of people, but you'll have to make up your mind what it means to you.

Our current flat looks north from Hong Kong island, so we have a (shrinking) sea view. The only downside is that we get to see how bad things are are on polluted days. Maybe if we were peering at the next block's wall ten feet away, we wouldn't worry about the smog so much?

Which direction?

MrsB says no to flats facing west, as they get very warm in the late afternoon from the summer sun, making it uncomfortable to sleep. We face north, which means we shiver at this time of year when the cold north wind blows – we often get dressed up warmly to go out during winter, only to find that when we step outside it's a lot warmer than in our flat! And we're certainly shady in the summer, but we don't get the southerly summer breezes. So, I'm wondering whether south-east would be better?

What combination?

In the end you'll have to make a trade-off, as it's unlikely you'll get everything you want. You'll have to juggle what you can afford too, as the price naturally varies according to how attractive the flat is. We can use the HSBC's online property valuation tool to make some quick comparisons: Flat A in Tower 1 of The Belcher's costs $8.58M on the lowest floor, $9.49 in the middle, or $10.64 for the highest floor they give valuations on. So, is it worth an extra 24% to live on the high floor?

You can also see the effect of direction by comparing the price of our flat with the mirror-image flat behind us that faces south-east. The south-east flat would be 7% cheaper! But if we chose again, I think we'd still end up in this flat. In the cheaper flat we'd face the road (noisy, which I don't like), and wouldn't get the sea view (which I'd miss).

Once you've decided

After looking at several flats in this development we told the estate agent that we only wanted her to call when this type of flat came on the market, i.e. this size, in these blocks, facing this direction, on the middle floor or higher. It took a while, but it was worth the wait.

How did you go about choosing the flat you're living in now?

MrB

Living the big estate life in Hong Kong

Mr Tall — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:00:00 +0000

Many of the excellent reader comments made on this article about the cost of living in Hong Kong have focused on the relative merits of keeping a car here, and how having one can be crucial if you’re living in a village outside Hong Kong’s urban areas. But as our very helpful reader 'shyam' has noted – via an excellent 10 advantages/10 disadvantages list – living the village life is great for some, but it isn’t for everyone.

It’s not for me, at least not at present.

In fact, I live in just about the most diametrically-opposed sort of housing Hong Kong has to offer, i.e. an enormous high-rise estate that comprises 15 50-storey towers. It’s got two huge outdoor pools, plus two smaller indoor ones. Its clubhouse provides squash courts, a gym, a billiards room, function rooms, a dance studio, several children’s playrooms and playgrounds – even a bowling alley.

For the purposes of this article, it’s this kind of multi-tower estate with loads of facilities I’ll be profiling. Hong Kong also has thousands of individual residential buildings and much smaller estates that may be very nice indeed, but that don’t offer the kind of resort-like facilities I’ve grown accustomed to.

I love living in a big estate, but in the spirit of respect for everyone’s choices and preferences, I’ll try to do here for my kind of housing just what shyam did so effectively for village houses: that is, provide lists of both pluses and minuses.

So, without further ado, let’s start with 10 advantages:

Big estates are generally among Hong Kong’s newer housing stock, and they’re, well, big. This gives buyers/renters a range of decently-maintained flats to choose from, and there’s also a healthy resale market. Buying a flat in a big estate means banks are more likely to give you a good mortgage, too.
They’re either conveniently located near shopping malls/areas, or are big enough to generate their own local economies, i.e. restaurants, supermarkets, dry cleaners, etc.
They’re excellent when you have kids – not only will they have sports and play facilities like the ones I’ve described, they’ll regularly organize evening/weekend/summer classes for kids (and for adults, too, for that matter). They also are likely to have bus stops for many schools right on site.
A big estate will have a large, permanent staff. This means it’ll be easy to contact someone who can do something about specific problems.
They’ve got to be pretty ecologically sound: by living in such close quarters, you’re making a very small footprint on the Earth.
They’re big enough to warrant their own public transport stops/taxi stands, plus taxi drivers always know where you’re going if you can just remember the name of your estate!
They’re very safe. Big estates typically provide several layers of security; it’s hard to imagine how a burglary, for example, could go undetected.
They can save you money. Since big estates usually have good sports facilities, you are far less likely to feel the need to join a club or gym. And since they also give you easy access to so many transport options, general amenities, and kids’ classes/activities, you’re also less likely to need a car.
Since they tend to be very high-rise, big estates often have at least some flats with great views.
If you are concerned with a certain level of ‘keeping up appearances’, as our village housing commenter alluded to, the big estates are not going to fool anyone into thinking you’re a tycoon, but they’re also quite ‘presentable’, in the Hong Kong parlance. That is, they will likely have nice building lobbies, pretty landscaping/exterior decoration, clean and well-lit lifts, and so on.

But living in a big estate is not all peaches and cream. There are downsides:

If you’re accustomed to living in a big house with a garden/yard, the Hong Kong office-tower-high-rise-flats life may leave you feeling like a busy bee who breaks free of the crowded office only to be immersed in a stream of other little workers rushing home to be stashed in high-rise hives. Some people really do find it hard adjust to small flats/high-rise living, and I completely understand this.
They can be quite expensive. Although the per-square-foot price may not be much higher than for flats in smaller buildings, the ratio of usable area is often worse, so you get less space for your money. Management fees are also likely to be significantly higher, in order to pay for all those nice facilities. And parking is never going to be free like it might be in a village; buying or renting a space is a significant extra expense.
Many big estates have good transport links, but aren’t centrally-located. It’s easy to see why: they take up a lot of space to build, and Hong Kong just doesn’t have much free land in its urban core. So if you’re interested in being ‘right where the action is’, you’re much more likely to end up in a smaller building.
They can tie you down with petty, summer-camp-style regulations and odd restrictions. For example, on aesthetic grounds, my estate forbids hanging laundry outside windows. This means you have to put it up indoors, which can be a pain. There may be strict limits on how much you can alter your flat when decorating it. It’s also common for some kinds of pets (especially dogs) to be banned.
They can be crowded, and if the sports and children’s facilities are undersized or badly maintained, they can be overwhelmed and chaotic. In my estate, this is generally not a problem; the exception that proves the rule is one kids’ playroom: it’s fine on weekdays, but it devolves into a pint-sized Inferno on weekends, when lots of residents invite their relatives to ‘bring the kids over; they can play in the clubhouse!’.
Big estates usually have only little patches of highly-landscaped, decorative green space, so there’s no sense of ‘getting away from it all’, i.e. escaping from Hong Kong’s sometimes-overpowering urban presence.
They can be boring. All the flats will be laid out to maximize square footage, so you’re not going to find a ‘charming, quirky, bohemian’ living space. Individual rooms will generally be small: as flats in big estates get bigger, they tend to have more rooms rather than bigger rooms. Many offer few (or no) truly spacious flats (the biggest flats in the Talls’ estate are just over 1000 square feet, for example). Big estates that do have big flats are seriously expensive.
Because they cover so much territory and house so many people, big estates essentially comprise their own neighborhoods. They give you no sense of living on a ‘street with character’. There are no surprises just around the corner.
Yes, it’s nice that a big estate has an extensive staff, but that means some of them may be unfriendly or indifferent. To them, it’s just a service job for a big organization; there’s little sense of ownership. I should note, though, that again generally the staff in my own estate are great, but there are exceptions . . . .
Living in a big estate means you will have, writ large, all the potential disadvantages of apartment living when it comes to your neighbors. Most will be just fine, but you aren’t likely to get to know many of them well. And you may encounter noisy/weird/generally unsavory neighbors you just can’t get away from.

Readers, any more thoughts on the varieties of Hong Kong living arrangements? We’d love to keep the conversation going!

How to buy a flat / apartment in Hong Kong

mrb — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:00:00 +0000

If you are planning to buy your first flat (aka apartment or condominium) in Hong Kong, you’re probably wondering how to get the best deal, while avoiding any expensive mistakes. Read on for Batgung's recommendations on trouble-free house-hunting.

Where should I live?

If you’re still unsure about which area of Hong Kong to live in, you might want to read this first.

Should I buy or rent?

Hmm, no easy answer to that one. I find this graph is always a sobering sight. It shows relative property prices from 1994 up to the current date. How would you interpret it? If you like a bargain, you might see that property today is cheaper than a year ago, and in fact cheaper than 12 years ago. As a pessimist you'll see that people who bought property at the highest prices in 1997 have seen almost 50% of the value disappear. Finally the optimists will note that the price has nearly doubled since 2003.

As an example, we bought our first flat in 1998 (prices had dropped, but it turned out they had a lot further to go) for $2.35M (all prices in HK$). Today it is worth around $1.7M (up from $1.2M at its worst). On the other hand, we bought our current flat in 2002 for $2.85M which is now worth about $4M. So they haven’t made us rich, but I don't like the idea of paying money to a landlord forever, and we’re happy to not have to move at the end of a lease.

If you are thinking of buying vs renting, also keep the effects of commissions, legal fees and stamp duties in mind. Let's say you buy a $4M flat, and pay the typical 30% downpayment of $1.2M. You can also expect to pay over $200,000 in extra fees associated with buying and selling it, before even thinking of decorating costs. If you just plan to keep the flat for a couple of years while you are here on a contract, the price of the flat will have to rise around 5% just to cover your costs.

Where will you find potential properties?

Once you have an idea of where you want to live, the size of flat and number of rooms you need, you can either start on the internet or head straight to an estate agent (aka property agent, or real-estate agent). I use GoHome most often. I used to like Centanet, but they seem to have given up on developing the English-language version of their website.

The GoHome site also offers property listings, but I’ve not been that impressed with them. The couple of times we contacted advertisers, the properties we were interested in were mysteriously not available. I guess that some property agents post non-existent sales just to catch attention in the hope they can show customers other flats?

In any case, your next step is to visit an estate agent.

How can I find a good estate agent?

Certainly ask friends and colleagues for any recommendations, as word-of-mouth is the best bet. Failing that, visit the area you are interested in, and take a look at the windows of a few agents. Do they list buildings that you are interested in? Do most of the properties they advertise cover your price range? (Some specialise in the high- or low-end of the market, so if that's not what you are looking for, move elsewhere.)

Once you've chosen an agent, try visiting a few flats to see if you are comfortable with them. Note that for each flat you visit you’ll have to sign a sheet agreeing you can’t buy that flat through any other agent for a specified number of months. So if you don’t like the agent, move on quickly.

Some points to watch for when choosing an agent include:

Can they speak reasonable English?

It doesn't have to be fluent, as the vocabulary of property transactions is quite limited – just enough to make sure your needs are understood. In fact you might even want to carefully avoid fluency. When buying our first flat we went to the extreme of pretending that we didn't speak Cantonese (MrsB is Hong Kong Chinese, so that's a stretch!). If you visit a flat at the same time as a group of Chinese-speaking buyers and their agent, you'll understand why - 'hard sell' seems to be the only way many local agents work, and I think many buyers just sign something to shut the agent up.

Our ploy worked well initially, as the only complimentary English word our agent seemed to know was 'fine'. After a flat full of fines - 'the bathroom is fine, the kitchen is fine, the view is fine, etc', she shut up and left us to our own devices. There was karmic payback when we found that the seller's agent lived in the same building as our new flat. The first time she met us in the lift with MrsB's relatives, we had to come up with some creative explanations about how we'd learned Cantonese so quickly!

Will they follow your price range?

Agents make money from commissions, so it's natural they want you to buy as expensive a flat as you can afford. Also, on the first one or two visits they'll probably show you a wide range of prices, for you to get an idea of what's on the market. But after that if they offer to show you flats that are out of your budget, just say no. If they keep doing it, find another agent.

Are they honest?

The favourite words I like to hear an agent say are 'I don't know'. Of course you expect they'll check and get back to you with the information, but I take that as a basic sign of honesty. If they always have an answer to every question, and you catch them out a few times, they're likely making up answers. Are they being lazy, dishonest, or have they been selling so long they believe their own guesses? In any case, call them on the mistake and if it continues then look for a new agent.

Are small, local agencies best, or the big Hong Kong-wide chains?

We've used the local agencies, and they seem more flexible on commission rates, but we also have friends that prefer the big chains. I think they just feel more comfortable dealing with a larger company.

How much commission should I pay the agent?

The official rate is 1% of the final purchase price, and the agent will probably tell you that they aren't allowed to change it. In practice, few things in Hong Kong sell without a discount, and you shouldn't have trouble getting them to agree 0.8% or 0.9% commission rates. I recommend the time to discuss this is when you first meet your agent, not right at the end when you're trying to sign the contract.

You can even get lower rates, but if you drive too hard a bargain, you may end up hurting yourself as then the agent has little incentive to help you. One approach we've used is to agree on a lower rate for a 'bad' price, a normal rate (say 0.8%) for a fair price, and the full 1% for a good price. Which leads us on to...

What is a fair price for a flat?

There are two easy ways to get an idea of the price you should be paying. First look up transaction records of recent sales in the development you are looking at, to see the range of prices people have paid. Then to get a more specific idea, check the bank's valuation of the flat you are looking at. This used to need a call to the bank, but several banks now offer online valuations. The HSBC property valuation page covers a very comprehensive list of properties in Hong Kong.

What affects the price of a Hong Kong flat?

You’ll find that blocks of flats you consider similar can have very different prices. Sometimes you’ll even find a large variation between prices of flats in the same block. Here are some explanations I’ve heard. (Even if you don’t agree with them, think if they’ll affect the resale value of the flat when you want to move and need to resell)

Location. Seems obvious, but where you might see a flat in a crowded built-up area with no view, others may see a flat conveniently near to shops and the local MTR station. See South Horizons as an example of somewhere that is cheaper because it is considered to be an inconvenient place.
Orientation. Will it get a lot of sunshine in summertime, and be very hot? Or catch the cold northerly winds in winter?
School networks. The Central and Western areas of Hong Kong (including Mid-levels) lie in the catchment areas of many top-name schools. That is a big deal to many parents.
Age of the building. You’re probably used to houses that are 100+ years old, and if you’re from Europe then even 200+ years old is not unusual. Here people get twitchy about buying buildings that are more than around twenty years old.
Top floor. This often commands a premium because you’ll have access to the roof - think outdoor plants and barbecues. Be careful though as in older buildings it can also mean leaking ceilings and an unbearably hot flat in the summer.

What else should I ask about?

The efficiency of the flat. If Hong Kong flats weren’t small enough already, you’ll soon realize that the quoted figure is the gross – in all senses of the word - area. Multiply that by the efficiency (anything over 80% is considered good) to find the usable value. Flat prices are quoted based on the gross area, so you can have two flats with the same gross area, but different efficiencies and so very different actual usable areas.
The monthly management fee. How much will you pay, and what does it include? In older, smaller developments it just gets you several interchangeable grumpy old men that sit by the main entrance, and snooze. In larger modern developments it may give you access to swimming pools, sports facilities, childrens’ playrooms, and other goodies.
What large-scale maintenance work has been done lately? In a new (< 5-years) building, this can give you an indication of any problems with the building, or on the plus side how aggressive the management are to fix problems. In older (> 10 years) buildings, has there been any repair or replacement of the exterior wall coverings? Have the outside water and sewage pipes been replaced? If not, are there any existing plans for this work to be done? Is the cost of the work shared among the owners, or covered by the management fees? Somewhere before a building’s 20th birthday this work will typically need to be done, and can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per flat.
Have any alterations been made to the original structure of the flat? This is more common on old (20+ years) flats, where people have changed shapes of windows, closed in balconies, built extra rooms on the roof, etc. In recent years the government has been cracking down on this, and forcing landlords to pay to remove additions and/or check that changes are structurally sound.
Slopes. If there are slopes around the building, who is responsible for their upkeep? If it is the responsibility of the owners of the flats, and it is a small property, your share of the bill could be expensive.

+ + +

If we haven't answered your question, if you see any mistakes above, or you have other ideas on how to make buying a flat as painless as possible, we’d love to hear from you.

Regards, MrB

Town planning in Hong Kong, part II

Mr Tall — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:00:46 +0000

As I mentioned in my previous article on Hong Kong town planning, it's curious -- in a wonderful way, of course -- that Hong Kong's extreme population density, coupled with 'Radiant City' town planning that's produced mostly urban hellholes in other countries, has resulted in a very livable city that's among the world's safest.

In response to my article, reader SKMama offered a number of possible reasons for why this might be the case. I'll just recap them here:

Excellent & relatively inexpensive transportation -- most people can go from where they live to another section of town quickly and easily.

These high density developments are not necessarily associated with poverty.

Amenities are nearby? Most big developments in new towns have amenities which function - schools and markets there or nearby, libraries, etc.

Cultural expectations -- Even in villages in Guangdong, people for the most part lived very densely (walled village w/ narrow alleys and small rooms). So, living densely is not so "foreign" to the cultural roots of many people?

I think SKMama is pretty much right on target, with maybe two minor quibbles, which I'll get out of the way first.

So, quibblingly, on point 1, although it's likely true that isolation breeds problems, I'm not sure how important this factor was historically in Hong Kong. That is, in many parts of Hong Kong extreme density preceded good transport (e.g. areas in Kowloon east such as Kwun Tong before the MTR was built). But then these areas were not designed along Radiant City lines, so maybe I'm making a moot point. In any case, it's now surely true that even denizens of Radiant Outposts like Tseung Kwan O (i.e. me) can get 'into town' very quickly, so there's no real sense of being cut off from the rest of the city at all.

In point 3, SKMama notes that HK's highly-planned 'Radiant City'-type estates have amenities provided. That's true, and it surely would be a problem if they didn't, but according to Jane Jacobs, the provision of such 'planned' amenities is no guarantee of urban vitality, and in fact often is counterproductive. How so? Well, to ensure the success of the businesses stipulated in a Radiant Plan, the possibility of others spontaneously developing is often explicitly excluded by zoning, space limitations, etc. I think that's the case in many of HK's developments, i.e. there's not much room for shops, restaurants, and other amenities to 'spring up' once the estate's allotted spaces are occupied. Little 'neighborhood monopolies' are thus encouraged, to the benefit of no one but a few lucky shop owners and restaurateurs.

Now I'd like to pick up on a couple of SKMama's points that I think are right on the mark, and maybe try to add a bit in support of them.

Point 2 is a very good one. At one point, over half of HK's population was publicly-housed, although that's now dropped to around a third as the city gets richer. And even though no one here equates public with private housing -- i.e. pretty much everyone knows right off if your address is a public or private development -- there really isn't that much of a stigma against living in public housing. This may be changing, of course, as the percentage of the population that's grown up in private housing increases.

Point 4 is also much-supported by academic studies, and from common-sense evidence. Chinese villages are closely-built, and Hong Kong itself has been infamous for its crowding and population density right from the 1840s onward. On a related note, it's important to realize how grateful many new immigrants to HK in the post-war years were when they received a government-provided flat. Many had lived in squatter huts in incredibly bad conditions -- so bad that even a small concrete box seemed luxurious. That's another sentiment that's likely to be far less salient these days, of course.

This ability to deal with cramped living conditions is the essence of the book SKMama mentions, Nuala Rooney's At Home with Density. (To keep from cluttering things up here, I'll include a short review of this book in the comments following this article.) Rooney interviewed 15 families in Hong Kong public housing flats, and catalogs their tactics for living in cramped conditions. What's amazing is how little griping she gets from her interviewees: they see living at high density to be inherent to Hong Kong life, and they don't waste much energy wishing things were different.

So all of these factors surely do make Hong Kong work. But I think that one factor overrides the rest: pure population density. Hong Kong's 'planned' environments, no matter how ignorantly conceived and ineptly executed, are redeemed by sheer force of numbers. A flood of people out on the street (or the development's podium) cures all manner of ills, from rotten configurations of public spaces to inadequate provision for businesses and restaurants to inconvenient location and access.

Paradoxically, of course, this density is the result of no one's choice. If you asked most Hong Kong people, they wish there were more space for building less dense housing and amenities. But the simple lack of cheap land, and hence the necessity for crowding, has overpowered numerous problems inherent to high-rise living in other cities. For example, there's no need to build massive parking lots or garages that mar large stretches of the city, as HK's population density makes public transport efficient and feasible. There are few problems with 'grey areas' of wasted land at the boundaries of developments and public areas such as parks, because if there's any such space available, it's surely going to be built on. And so on.

In other words, Hong Kong really is unique. It's the exception to many of the rules of urban planning and, for this very reason, endlessly fascinating if you're willing to try to understand it.

Here are some links to some websites that deal with urban planning, population density, and so on.

This article is a good summary of Jane Jacobs' thought.

And this article is a helpful review and assessment of Jacobs' influence.

This is the first installment of a five-part interview with Nikos Salingaros, a contemporary critic of the 'Radiant City'. It's excellent throughout. Also, here at the end of part I, be sure to scroll down into the comments and read Michael Blowhard's comment posted on May 2 at 11:16 AM. It's a bit USA-centric, but it's also one of the best short tutorials on the ills of modernist urban planning you're ever going to find.

Should a city be a 'common work of praise'? If you want a very different perspective on how cities go both right and wrong, this article on the 'liturgical' aspects of urban design is thought-provoking and maybe even profound.

This site is devoted to the vision and work of Leon Krier, a contemporary architect who's trying to realize Jane Jacobs' new urbanism. In this interview, Krier singles out Hong Kong as essentially the exception to planning rules.

This video clip gives you a rundown of the Hong Kong town planners' current thinking on how to further develop my own neighborhood, Tseung Kwan O. It's very interesting indeed.

This discussion board thread is a poll/debate on whether Hong Kong's population density and high-rise living makes it a 'heaven' or a 'hell'. It's long, but fascinating to read the sheer revulsion many people (even those who frequent a website dedicated to skyscrapers!) express at the thought of living Hong Kong-style.

If you would like a humorous look at the UK's twelve most hated examples of 'Radiant City' style architecture, check here.

Town planning in Hong Kong

Mr Tall — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:50:27 +0000

I've recently read a classic book on town planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs. Jacobs burst on to the town planning scene with this book in the early 1960s, and has been the sage of what's been termed 'New Urbanism' ever since. She unfortunately passed away recently. (You can find a fairly recent interview with her here if you're interested.)

Jacobs' vision of optimal urban life was profoundly shaped by her years living in New York City's Greenwich Village. She returns to her own neighborhood for illustrations over and over in Death and Life, inspired by its lively mixture of uses and people, the active life on its streets and sidewalks, and its compact 'walkability' -- cars aren't anathema, but they shouldn't dictate the conduct of life's day-to-day practicalities, either.

Underlying her vision is the concept of 'diversity', in the original sense of the word, i.e. a mixture of people, building types, businesses, civic amenities and visual effects.

But an evil empire is staring down Jacobs' plucky little urban village: the 'Radiant City', an amalgam dreamed up by professional architects and town planners from Le Corbusier onward. The Radiant City is highly modernist, with clean, form-follows-function architecture and layout. Acres of smooth grass (i.e. 'open space') are punctuated by severe tower blocks.

As Jacobs was writing, the Radiant City was being made manifest in American cities as rundown but still vital 'slums' were cleared wholesale and replaced with huge new public housing projects financed by waves of government money.

The Radiant City provides Jacobs with the perfect foil. Forty years later, few would consider US public housing policy anything but a disaster. Public housing projects, no matter how shiny, clean and promising, decayed rapidly into crime, blight and often outright chaos.

So many people were ready to listen to Jacobs, who counterproposed four principles for the economic and social rehabilitation of urban neighborhoods, which Death and Life develops in detail. I'll sum them up quickly:

Mixed uses. Vital urban neighborhoods should combine residential, commercial, civic and even industrial uses. Zoning should not set rigid barriers.
Short city blocks. Jacobs believes neighborhoods cannot mesh and cross-fertilize if long blocks funnel people relentlessly to just a few streets that end up being overdeveloped commercially.
A mix of old and new buildings. Jacobs has nothing against new buildings, but believes any neighborhood must have many old buildings, too, not just to provide visual variety, but because renting space in old buildings is generally cheaper than in new. This allows for the incubation of small businesses, restaurants, and other quirky uses that are priced out of new buildings, but nevertheless add much interest.
A sufficient concentration of people. Contra the Radiant City planners, Jacobs believes a relatively high population density is not just desirable, but crucial to a living city. Lowering population density below a certain point (which varies from city to city) makes true urban development impossible.

By the time I finished reading Jacobs' book -- which I recommend highly, by the way; it's a true classic and highly readable -- I simply could not avoid thinking about how well Hong Kong's urban planners have followed her criteria, so let's do just that.

First, do most HK neighborhoods mix their uses well? Certainly there's a pretty good dose of commercial use mixed into just about every Hong Kong residential neighborhood, so that's fine. But otherwise I'd argue we do quite badly. Industrial areas are strictly zoned off, although they're increasingly infused with commercial redevelopment, as in Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong, for example. Civic areas -- e.g. the Cultural Center/Art Museum waterfront area, and the History/Science Museum complex -- are set off consciously and sharply from the surrounding commercial development. Most new housing developments are shielded from 'the street', with their common areas isolated on raised podiums.

Second, do Hong Kong planners employ the use of short city blocks? If all you saw of Hong Kong was Mongkok, you'd surely say yes, and with astonishing effect! But if you look around one of HK's highly-planned new towns such as Tseung Kwan O, you'd see just the opposite. 'Blocks' are barely recognizable, with long, long stretches of land with no cross streets through them at all.

Third, is there a conscious effort to mix old and new buildings? Parts of HK Island and some older Kowloon neighborhoods such as Tsim Sha Tsui now offer a reasonable mix, although there are of course very few genuinely old buildings left in the whole city. But this is not a result of planning. Much of Hong Kong was built up in the years right after World War II, so there are long stretches with buildings of generally similar age. And redevelopment of these post-war buildings on the Kowloon peninsula was suppressed for decades by the height limitations necessitated by Kai Tak airport. In new towns, buildings were by definition built almost simultaneously, so it's a moot point. So I don't think we can give HK's planners any credit in this category at all.

And now we come to point 4, population density. Full marks here, Hong Kong boys and girls! Hong Kong's lack of land for development has necessitated some of the world's highest population densities, whether the town planners here have liked it or not.

In sum, then, although Hong Kong's planners have now had over 40 years to absorb Jacobs' insights, one look around my own neighborhood at the clusters of brand-new residential towers with large empty lots in between has me thinking 'Hmmmm. We're still right here in Raaadiant City!!' And yet! My neighborhood is not an urban hellhole. It's not crime-ridden. It's not inconvenient. I don't have a car, so I either walk or use public transport wherever I go. And I don't think it's ugly.

So how can this be? How can Hong Kong's town planners have followed a blueprint that brought only misery to US cities, and yet come up with a city that's both famous for its vitality and, I would argue, highly livable? I'll try to find some answers to this question in Part II of this story.

Two square meter man

Mr Tall — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:11:55 +0000

I've griped about it myself: pollution and a general indifference to the environment in Hong Kong. But in one way, at least, Hong Kong is surely one of the world's most environmentally-sound cities. How can that be, you ask, through a haze of air pollution, standing next to a harbor that's a toxic soup?

Well, we get told over and over that using up too much land for development is one of the primary environmental sins. You constantly hear about the terrible 'footprints' we humans leave on the earth's surface. Clearing land to build on lies behind deforestation, species extinction, and so on.

I started thinking about this the other day as I was jogging around my ultra-high-rise neighborhood in Hong Kong. What kind of 'footprint' was I leaving on the earth's surface, i.e. how much space was I taking up?

Uncharacteristically, I started doing some mental calculations.

I live in a 15-tower housing estate. Each tower has -- and I started rounding figures here strictly for convenience -- 50 stories. Each storey has eight flats. Let's say an average of three people lives in each flat (a bit low, I think, but I don't want to be accused of overstatement).

My little brain then put together the following equation:

3 people x 8 flats x 50 stories x 15 towers = 18,000 people in my housing estate

That's a nice big number, isn't it?

Next, I reckoned my estate occupies a plot of land that's around 400 meters long, and averages just under 100 meters wide - let's say 90. Again, these are rough figures, and again I think I've erred on the generous side.

By now you, clever reader, have no doubt jumped ahead and calculated the Tall Estate's area: 36,000 square meters.

At this point, we can complete a simple operation: 36,000 square meters divided by 18,000 residents means each member of Mr Tall's housing estate occupies just about exactly two square meters of the earth's surface.

Appropriately, if I arrange my two square meters end-to-end, this is just enough room for me to lie down all stretched out and comfy. I find this symmetry extremely satisfactory.

I would hate for such a lovely little number to go otherwise unused, so let's just follow things out a little further, shall we? What would it be like, for example, if everyone on earth occupied the same amount of space I do?

Well, there are 7 billion of us tormenting our planet at the moment, give or take a few foul polluting meat puppets here and there, so that's 14 billion square meters we'll need. We all know that one square kilometer covers exactly 1 million square meters. (At least I know this, thanks to Jimmy Carter forcing me to learn the metric system when I was 10.)

Anyway, now we divide 14 billion by 1 million, and -- we thankfully have a lot fewer zeros to confuse us. I come up with 14,000.

That is, to house the world in Mr Tall style, we need a housing estate that covers 14,000 square kilometers. That might sound like a lot of land, but really we just need to stake out a nice square plot that measures around 120 km on all sides -- that's just 75 miles per side, for us Americans -- and that has room for some very large sewage pipes to be installed beneath it.

To put this into some perspective, Ireland comprises 70,000 square km, so our estate would take up just one-fifth of that one small island. To translate back into American, we could fit our entire estate -- every Mr and Mrs and Child Tall in the whole wide world -- into the only-just-barely-a-state of Connecticut, with room left over for one hell of a strip mall.

And, oh yeah, the rest of the whole world would be free for a farm or two, and maybe for some parks and wildlife preserves.

Now, even I'll admit that this is a simplistic and extreme way of looking at the problem. So let's consider a much more plausible alternative.

If we dig out the actual population density figures for cities around the world, unsurprisingly, you don't need to go far down the list to find us: Hong Kong has about 6,200 people per square kilometer.

That's already pretty crowded, but allow me to add a couple of points of context to this figure. Hong Kong's population density is based on the entire area of the SAR, not just its actual urban areas, as it is for other cities on this list. I've seen various estimates of how much of Hong Kong's land is actually built up, ranging from 10-20%, but let's again be conservative, go for the highest figure, and say that all of Hong Kong's people live on about 20% of its land.

This means that the real population density here is much closer to 31,000 people/square kilometer (i.e. 6,200/.20).

Also keep in mind that much of the 80% of Hong Kong that's not built up is essentially wild. So if we were to ask everybody around the world to live in quarters as close as those in Hong Kong, we're not committing them to a soulless, stark urban wasteland. The great majority of our imaginary territory could be left completely to nature, or used in enviro-friendly ways.

Okay, now back to our numbers. How much space would it take to house the world at the Hong Kong standard, i.e. at an actual density of 31,000/square km, in an urban area that took up 20% of a broader area that could remain unspoiled?

Using our figure of 7 billion people, I come up with an overall area of roughly 1.1 million square kilometers. That comes out to just .74% -- i.e. not even one percent -- of the world's total land area (which is 148,000,000 km2).

Again to put these numbers into context: countries of just over a million km squared include the big-but-not-enormous Ethiopia, Bolivia and South Africa. By comparison, China and the USA are both around 9 million square km.

But remember, only 225,000 square km of this area - i.e. 20% of 1.1. million square km -- would need to be built up at a density equivalent to Hong Kong. So our actual urban area would be smaller than the already-cozy UK, which covers 241,000 square km. We'd need just .15% -- less than two-tenths of one percent -- of the world's total land area.

Think about that for a minute: 99.85% of the world's land without buildings of any sort.

But I wonder how many self-proclaimed 'environmentalists' around the world are willing to live this way, i.e. in tightly-packed urban centres that genuinely minimize land use, and that make widespread public transport not only possible but profitable? Maybe more of them should investigate life in Hong Kong -- here we certainly have the opportunity to practice what we preach when it comes to saving space!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript: for a far less cranky overview of urban densities, in which discussion of Hong Kong population features prominently, see these two articles (note that they are .pdf files). They were written by a visitor to HK, and despite a few howlers (e.g. the main road from Kowloon to Tseung Kwan O passes over a hill, not through a tunnel; HK locals don't eat at restaurants that take credit cards) they are generally well-observed and accurate. It's interesting to have an outsider's view sometimes, since it's easy for those of us who've lived here a long time to forget just how unusual Hong Kong really is.

Where in Hong Kong should I live?

batgung — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:54:24 +0000

Question: What part of Hong Kong should I live in? How do I find information about places to live in Hong Kong?

Mr Tall replies: We must preface the information you're about to read with a couple of cautionary notes. First, there are few questions more subjective and potentially contentious than 'what's a good place to live'? All big cities have many, many 'livable' neighborhoods, and Hong Kong is no exception. Anyone moving here from abroad is well advised to take a month or two in a short-term, serviced flat to get a feel for the city and its different districts, and to conduct a search for a place to live that's as careful and considered as time allows.

In any case, please take the information that follows in the sense that it has been offered by the Batgung and their readers: no claims to being comprehensive, balanced or fair are made. These are personal opinions, and your mileage will certainly vary.

Question: I need to find housing in Hong Kong, and want to get a sense for prices, availability, and so on. Are there any websites in English that can help?

Mr Tall replies: Yes! Here are some recommendations for sites to check out:

Reader Odaiwai says: Try gohome.com. It seems to have a wide range of prices and properties, from palatial to slum.

Another reader: We found the "Transaction Records" section at centanet very helpful. Once we decided on a couple of flats we liked, we used this site to see how much similar flats in the same building had sold for, and used that information in our bargaining.

Reader Fiona adds: Another great source of info is the Wednesday issue of the SCMP -- i.e. the 'Property Post' section.

Question: What should I look out for when looking for housing in Hong Kong? Do you have any tips?

Mr Tall replies: First, there are lots of tradeoffs to be made in the HK market. If you're willing to consider areas outside the typical expat neighborhoods. In particular, prices drop almost automatically once you get off Hong Kong Island itself. Living 'on the island' is a non-negotiable point for many expats, but those of us who live on the Kowloon/New Territories side generally get more square feet and facilities for our money. Conversely, we've got longer commutes to the business districts on Hong Kong Island, usually find it harder to procure western comforts and amenities, and are more likely to feel isolated from other expatriates. Many people also prefer Hong Kong island's 'character', in that it's got older neighborhoods/streets that feel less planned and potentially soul-less, like some of the huge housing estates elsewhere certainly do.

Second, right now there are a *lot* of new developments in Hong Kong - some sectors of the market are still choking on the glut of flats planned and initiated in the heady days of the mid/late-90s property boom. That's been keeping prices pretty low, although there's been a recent sharp upturn after a long slump. Many of these new developments maintain lavish, sales-oriented websites, so if you see a development that is relatively new, it's likely to have its own site. Many, many hours of websurfing possible here!

Third, remember that Hong Kong property prices are never going to seem cheap to people from most other places, but the recent crash has meant they've at least come back into line with other big metropolitan areas around the world, although I'd guess they're still pretty high on the list. As I mentioned, there are clear signs that the market is recovering, but it will take a long time for it ever to reach the disproportionate heights of the mid- to late 90s -- if it ever does. Just to give you a sense of scale: Mrs Tall and I bought our first flat in late 1995, which was well before the high point of the boom (it peaked right around the handover in mid-1997). We sold that flat in 2002 and were delighted to get just under half our purchase price.

Reader Bijai adds:

1) Off Hong Kong Island is going to be cheaper.

2) New properties, even those listed at 80% usable area, are going to be smaller than old properties with the same listed area and lower usability. How, nobody knows. As an example my previous house (65% usable 1400ft) was smaller than my current flat (90% usable 700ft). Go figure.

3) A mortgage is usually only granted for a maximum of 30 years -- the age of the house. This doesn't include large estates such as Mei Foo, Telford Gardens, Taikoo Shing (this is a good one on the Island) or Heng Fa Chuen because they are considered relatively safe bets by the banks. The first three are also extremely good value if you don't mind the somewhat dubious exteriors.

4) What will happen 10 years down the track....I would say don't trust anyone like me who bought around 1997 for advice on that. Things look good but the prices of property are very closely related to the prospects of HK, so if the economy is good prices will keep going up.

Mr B adds: Buying property in a new country means a whole new set of abbreviations to learn. Out with the "Det. Des. Res." that you admired in the UK (you can't afford one here anyway), and time to start deciding whether you want your flat with MV or SV.

MV is optimistically referred to as "Mountain View", but in most places it means you'll be staring at the wall of a neighbouring tower block. So having decided we wanted a flat with SV (sea view), should we go for FSV or PSV ? ("Full" or "Partial" of course, keeping up ?)

As part of the mass of trivia that property agents hold in their heads, we were immediately told that only flats above the 15th floor would have an FSV.

We purchased flat 20C and admired our FSV for a year or so, only to see an ominous yellow crane peep over the top of a building lower down the hill. In Hong Kong it's only a matter of time before a building in front of you gets knocked down, and a new block twice the height sprouts in its place. Even a seafront property is no guarantee, as one morning you'll open the curtains to find a reclamation barge setting up for work.

Sure enough, our FSV is now a PSV...

And another good point from Mr B: If you expect to hold a flat for, say, ten years, conventional wisdom says you should buy something new-5 years old to make it relatively easy to sell at the end of that period.

Reader Fiona adds: Regarding Hong Kong real estate agents....as with anyone working on commission basis, their aim is to bump it prices as much as possible, and remember, they're really acting with the landlord's interests at heart, and they operate in a cut-throat environment. Even if you don't let one of their apartments, they'll bug you forever more!!!

Question: What about particular neighborhoods? Which ones are good for expats?

Mr Tall replies: The majority of expats in Hong Kong live on Hong Kong Island itself, although it seems to me that more and more are living in the New Territories these days. This may be just my own prejudices speaking, however, since that's where the Talls live.

The most 'expat-friendly' neighborhoods (I use the inverted commas only partially as scare quotes) are mid-levels, i.e. the area just inland (and uphill) from the main business district in Central; the Peak, which comprises mostly high-end housing on Victoria Peak, the traditional aerie of Hong Kong's overlords, both colonial and financial; and the south side of Hong Kong Island, i.e. areas such as Pokfulam, Repulse Bay, Shouson Hill, Tai Tam and Stanley.

That said, there are quite a few expats in just about every district on Hong Kong Island. Western district, i.e. the older area of the city just to the west of Central, is particularly popular for those seeking somewhat lower prices in an area that's still very convenient for working downtown.

Over on the Kowloon side, no single district or area stands out for being particularly expat-oriented. Perhaps the best candidate is Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong's oddest neighborhood, comprising lots of nice low-rise houses and small apartment blocks; kindergartens and other schools (many of very high reputation); bridal shops; and finally a liberal dosing of 'love hotels', i.e. hourly getaways for the adulterous set.

In the New Territories, the Sai Kung/Clearwater Bay area is a growing favorite (more on that below), and there are lots of expats in Shatin and other NT areas, too.

Finally, Lantau Island is also home to many expats, most of them in the highly-planned community of Discovery Bay. More on this below, too.

That preamble out of the way, what follows are some highlights of Batgung forum discussions on a number of particular places to live.

Lantau Island: Discovery Bay

Reader Fiona says: Re Disco-bay (as we call it).....beware of hidden costs such as transportation, management fees and even supermarket prices.

Mr Tall comments: If you live in Discovery Bay, the commute to the main business district in Central is relatively short, since the boats that serve this route are jetfoils rather than ordinary ferries -- it'd be more like half an hour to 40 minutes, again depending on your distances to ferry piers. I am not a fan of Discovery Bay, but some people seem to like it a lot. It's a highly planned community with no cars/buses, and it's got lots of families with small children. It's got that Singaporean planned-community ambience that's just not for me. Many many people -- especially expats -- find it an excellent place to live, however.

If your office would be somewhere other than Central, you're looking at a much longer commute, of course.

A reader replies: The reason I don't like Discovery Bay is that it's a bit 'unnatural'. Even the beach is man-made. It's essentially a large tiled plaza and apartments on the roads behind. If you like a bit of local flavour you'll not find it there.

Having said that it's a great place if you enjoy hiking - there are several good trails leading off from there, and the water seems cleanish for watersports.

Another reader adds some food for thought on Disco Bay: The main reason of why I think Discovery Bay could be an interesting place to buy an apartment is the new Disney theme park that is being built on the northern part of the island. I know from experience with EuroDisney in Paris that after the park starts its operation, the property prices around the park rose explosively. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case in HK.

Lantau Island: Mui Wo

A reader asks: We are thinking we might like to live on a less developed area of Lantau, say near Mui Wo. What realistically would the commute be? Are there good preschools/kindergartens?

Mr Tall replies: Well, it's easy to answer the commute question -- if you'd be working in Central, i.e. the main business district. If that's the case, then you can figure just over an hour, or maybe a bit more, depending on how far your flat/office are from the respective ferry piers, because that's how you get from Mui Wo to Central! This commute would be quite 'easy' in the sense that riding the boat is pleasant, but there's really no way to shorten it.

I should note that there are now 'fast' ferries available, and I guess I really shouldn't put the scare quotes on that word, since they do only take about half the time the 'slow' ferries do, i.e. from the time you leave the dock in Mui Wo to the time you land in Central is only about half an hour. When I mention an hour's commute, I'm assuming the fast ferries -- it's the ancillary bits of the commute that really add up, i.e. getting down to the ferry pier in Mui Wo from wherever you live, waiting a bit for the ferry, then getting yourself to your office in Central (the ferry piers there are a pretty good hike from even the nearest office building, i.e. IFC II). All in all, unless you live right next to the ferry pier in Mui Wo (which isn't the nicest part of the island, by far) I think you'll still end up looking at about an hour's commute. It's shorter from Discovery Bay because of the way the housing there is clustered around the ferry pier (although you can still end up with a substantial walk) and since the ferry service there uses true jetfoils, which are still significantly faster than the 'fast' ferries to the other outlying island destinations.

A reader adds: But the old slow ferries were more comfortable and relaxing and caused less sea sickness. The thing I would not like about living on an outlying island is being so tied to the ferry schedule.

Sai Kung/Clearwater Bay

Reader Saikung Mama: I love living in the Sai Kung Clear Water Bay area. Rents are fairly reasonable, the air is clean, you can get buses and taxis pretty easily after the MTR closes down. Of course, it's an easier commute if you don't work on HK Island.

Mr Tall adds: Thanks, Saikungmama, for recommending my favorite part of town, too. I'd love to live in Sai Kung, but Mrs Tall works in Central, and it really is just a bit too far -- also, you're at the mercy of traffic conditions on Hiram's Highway.

Saikung Mama replies: It depends on where in Sai Kung you live.

If you live in "deepest Sai Kung", then yes, the commute can be well over an hour. But, if you live closer to town -- say around Fei Ngo Shan or Tseng Lan Shue -- you have a 10 min. bus ride to the Choi Hung MTR and about 35-45 minutes on the train to Central.

Or, if you live in the Silver Strand area of Clear Water Bay, you're about a 10 minute bus ride to the MTR in Tseung Kwan O and then about 40 miuntes on the MTR to Central.

Here are some of the listings for CWB.

I live in Sai Kung near Pik Uk and can get to Central in less than an hour.

I used to live in a village in Sai Kung, up near Po Lo Che. I had a gorgeous huge sea view, lots of greenery around me. Some of my neighbors even kept chickens (not too close, no smell) but I was on the middle floor of a "Spanish Villa" style villa house. It was an "apartment" ["But not as we know it, Jim"].

New Territories: Symphony Bay

A reader asks: Do any of you know the Villa Concerto apartments at Symphony Bay (Ma On Shan)?

A reader replies: We had a look at them (I think) but they are a little bit far away down a traffic constricted road from Ma On Shan town centre which means that you are dependent on the estate bus or mini-busses to get at least to Ma On Shan for buses (and later on trains). I've been on that stretch of road in the morning and because of the road works it was not a quick journey (1/2 hour). Nice estate if you don't need to work, good environment.

And another: Symphony Bay is very pleasantly located. The buildings themselves look extremely nice, too. Just wanted to note that their public transport access will improve when the KCR extension opens; it will terminate not far from Symphony Bay. Having said that, it will still be a long haul on the train to get into the urban areas.

And another: I think my husband & I looked at some of the flats there back in the late 90's when we were in the market. As I remember there were no balconies and it was on central air, you couldn't open the windows.

Question: what about some other neighborhoods that are 'off the beaten track' and that might be worth considering?

Reader Odaiwai says: If you're working [in Central], and you're on [a fairly high salary], get yourself a place on the Peak or Mid-levels and have a 15 minute commute on foot, or go for somewhere like Braemar Hill (in Eastern District), where the commute will be 20 minutes by bus or MTR (subway), and the rent will be far cheaper.

(A job I had a while back required commuting from North Point to near Prince's Building. I used the Bus (No. 18) and it took about 10-15 minutes in the mornings. We are talking rolling out of bed at 0830, shower, get dressed, get the bus, get coffee from Starbucks and be in the office by 0900.)

One advantage of a place like Mid-levels or Braemar Hill is that there'll be a lot of schools within walking distance, and hiking trails too, while you'll still have the public transport easily available.

Braemar Hill . . . is high up and out of the bustle, it's surprisingly green and there are trails and walking areas nearby. I think the flats are quite big (in HK terms) as well. (It's referred to as North Point Mid-levels, although I've seen buildings on King's Road (sea level) included in that.

One absolutely enormous advantage of living on HK island is that if you work late (or go out for a few beers with your workmates), getting home late at night is a very cheap taxi ride and usually very quick. The ferries can get very sparse late at night, and you don't want to be stuck with a two hour wait for the next ferry when it's already 1 am.

Saikungmama comments: "Apartment" living in some of the fancy places Dave mentions in Mid-Levels or Braemar Hill can be pretty and there's some green around (and usually nice views of the Harbour) and many offer "club house" facilities that often include children's indoor play room, an exercise room, a swimming pool, etc. This can be a good way to meet other people, and results in your feeling less "apartment bound".

Saikungmama adds: You might want to try Shek O. This site says that it's a 40 minute commute to Central:

Go Home has this information about Shek O.

Some of my in-laws live near Shek O and it's nice to visit, even though getting in and out on the weekends may be a bit of a hassle. But, if you're living there, why go anywhere else on the weekends. ;)

Lamma? I had a friend who would take the Ferry from Pak Kok Tsuen and it used to stop in Kennedy Town, and then she'd take the tram. Maybe living near Yung Shue Wan? There you might be able to find a whole house for not too much $. But the style of life might be difficult at first to adjust to. And, as Mr. Tall pointed out, if schooling is an issue, Lamma might be a problem.

[My husband and I] also lived in Tai Wai for a few years (between Kowloon Tong & Sha Tin on the KCR). I liked Tai Wai a lot: great wet market (wide aisles), lots of pubs, tons of banks, right near Shatin which has a better public library than Ngau Chi Wan or Sai Kung town and also provides pretty good shopping (New Town Plaza, etc.).

What's the cost of living in Hong Kong like?

batgung — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:48:27 +0000

Question: How about some basic info on things like rent prices, typical wages, cost of living, etc?

Mr B replies: For wages, a rough translation is that an HKD monthly salary is about the same value as an equivalent GBP annual salary (e.g. getting HKD30K a month is like getting GBP30K a year). Accommodation may be more expensive (though it's dropped a lot in the last six years), but you'll pay a lot less tax. I felt better off here on the same salary.

I used to be able to shock friends overseas with the costs of buying/renting property here, but HK property prices went on a downward slide for six years, bottomed out at last, and just lately have started going back up, while UK and US prices have mostly continued to increase over that time.

If you try to live exactly like you do at home and demand the exact same brands, then living overseas anywhere will be expensive. If you are willing to use more local brands, costs will even out. [See our articles on the cost of food, other common household items and accommodation, schools and transport for many direct comparisons of 'local' and 'expat' costs.]

I've just come back from a business trip in the US, and didn't buy anything there. If I do go there with a shopping list, it is probably for a specialty item from a store like REI, where maybe the selection here is more limited. Even that is less of an issue now, with online ordering of many things.

The only thing I can think of that would make a big impact is your size. I'm skinny, and not especially tall, so can find clothes and shoes here ok. Mr Tall will have a better idea on this, but I guess that if you are on the large size you may want to stock up on clothes and shoes before you leave home. [See also our articles on shopping in Hong Kong.]

A reader adds: I lived in Hong Kong for two decades before moving to London, Kuala Lumpur and then Kaohsiung (Taiwan). The cost of living nowadays is lower than pre-1997 days.

Question: If I'm offered a job by a Hong Kong company, what should I look out for in the package they offer me?

Mr B says: It's important that you find out what the total package would add up to. For example, if the employer is hiring you from abroad, in the knowledge you'll want a similar lifestyle to the one you'd have at home, then you'd look at whether your employment package includes rent for a larger than average (by local standards) apartment, school fees for children, paid flights home each year, etc.

Mr T adds: One other thing to remember is that your tax burden will be lighter here in Hong Kong than it would be in any western country. You'll be taxed here in Hong Kong at a flat 16%. US citizens are liable for US taxes as well, but at a far higher exemption level. (See also our FAQ on taxes in Hong Kong.)

Mr B is right - you really have to look carefully at the perks included in any job offer, especially the possibility of housing being provided or subsidized. If your potential new employer is offering you an upscale place to live in Hong Kong, this can be worth a great deal.

Also, pay attention to what's being offered in terms of a retirement fund contribution. The law here now requires that all workers in HK put away 5% of their salary each month into some kind of long-term savings/investment scheme. Some people have to pay this themselves out of their own salaries, but others get this covered by their employers, and some get significantly more than 5%. At the end of your tenure here, you get that investment handed to you as a lump sum. You need to find out how much you'll be getting in this area.

Also (this is becoming a trend) many companies in HK pay out highly variable bonuses; again, in banking and finance and some other fields these are often massive, but you're of course taking a risk in that some years you may get little or none.

Some companies also offer more 'colonial'-style perks such as flight allowances, subsidized school fees for children, and club memberships to their expatriate employees. Again, if you are offered any or all of these, they can add up to significant values, although they're obviously not fungible.

Finally, you have to be willing to forgo making exact comparisons in some areas. In particular, housing - keep in mind that most people here simply live in less space than most people in western countries. It's very possible you'll need to make concessions in this area (i.e. being willing to live in what might seem to you a small-to-mid-sized apartment instead of a house).

Fiona adds: Compensation is moving along the lines of 'all cash' in Hong Kong, i.e. pay is determined for the job and there's no real delineation for cash allowances within the total cash approach, though there is still often a packaging breakdown that allows the individual to reduce taxation by offering a housing allowance.

The days of housing/education and so on relating to family size are beginning to be a way of the past....the approach being that a job commands a certain level of compensation and how you spend that is up to you. And in line with this personal family decisions no longer have such an impact on an employee's cost to company -- the basic concept being the job is worth 100k a month and that's what we will pay, in total, leaving the individual to make spending choices. Great for the single guy/gal, not so great for the employee with a family.

It's hard to quantify medical insurance as a benefit, a lot of the group rates are pretty attractive when offered by a company, with pretty good benefits -- impossible to do a cost on cost comparison, especially with somewhere like the States. As for retirement, it sounds like they are offering basic MPF which is not that common but for someone on perhaps a contract basis it makes more sense than investing in a more generous retirement plan.