There’s no denying that land reclamation has played a pivotal role in the development plans of contemporary Hong Kong. Exhibits A and B in support of this policy’s success are, of course, West Kowloon’s International Commerce Centre and Central’s International Finance Centre Two, both of which are perched on promontories that, not so long ago, were somewhat on the submerged side. Despite such clear successes, though, many are now wondering if such prime examples of forced fish eviction really represent the best way forward for the Fragrant Harbour.

Back in 2014, for instance, when CY Leung, the city’s former Chief Executive, announced the 1,000-hectare East Lantau Metropolis land reclamation initiative, the public clearly had mixed feelings. Although its goal of creating a new ‘core business district’, while delivering new jobs and extended residential opportunities, was genuinely seen as worthwhile, there remained a number of unanswered questions as to the project’s ultimate economic viability.

Four years later, when Carrie Lam, the current Chief Executive, announced the project was being upgraded, extended and renamed – stretching across 1,700 hectares and several artificial islands as part of the Lantau Tomorrow Vision initiative – the level of cynicism also went up several notches. Indeed, the calls for greater transparency were far louder than they had been back in 2014. That, however, did not result in the project being put on hold. Far from it.

In February this year, Michael Wong Wai-lun, the Secretary for Development, announced that the first phase of the Lantau reclamation project – the construction of a 1,000-hectare artificial island off the coast of Kau Yi Chau – would break ground in 2025. In terms of cost, it is estimated to hover at around HK$130-150 per sq.ft – roughly equating to HK$130- 150 billion for the construction of the entire island.
Bearing in mind that the cost of building any of the subsequently required infrastructure would be in addition to this already huge sum, this did little to stem the dissenting voices. Indeed, many were strident in their concern that the massive bill for the entire project – conservatively estimated at around HK$500 billion – was something the city could ill afford.

Others were more concerned that the primary justification for the project – creating new real estate to help ease the city’s critical housing shortage – did not seem a priority under the terms of the proposed timeline, with the first completed units not due to open to occupancy until 2032. Capturing the sentiments of many, one local lawmaker said: “Hong Kong’s housing problem needs an urgent solution – such as immediate provisional accommodation – rather than being left to one megaproject that could take more than 20 years to complete.”

Even more critical were a number of local environmentalists, with their concerns focussing on the impact of a nearby “dead zone” – a stretch of ocean where the seabed is already starved of oxygen, devastating the local marine life and compromising the overall water quality. David Baker, a professor at HKU’s Swire Institute of Marine Science, says the construction could exacerbate the existing problem and result in “noxious conditions, a higher proportion of red tides and a surfeit of dead fish.”

There is also the controversy and uncertainty that still surround the Hongkong-Macau- Zhuhai Bridge (HMZB). While much has been made of the pivotal role the completed HMZB is expected to play as an integral part of the Greater Bay Area (GBA) initiative, what has received rather less attention was the costly – and obligatory – creation of a 150-hectare artificial island solely to house a border checkpoint facility.

So grossly excessive was that particular item of unwarranted expenditure that even Lam was obliged to concede that it was virtually impossible to justify. Speaking with undue candour for a Hong Kong politician, she said: “We put so much effort into reclaiming that piece of land and now there is only one thing on the whole island – the public facility. It does not, indeed, fit with my idea of using the land to the fullest extent.”

Now, in order to avoid any repetition of this particular fiscal folly, it is seen as incumbent on the SAR government to address a number of pressing concerns. Most importantly, with regard to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision project, it has to ensure it is being wholly realistic in terms of what it can ultimately deliver.

At present, the government claims it will improve the overall quality of life in the city by housing up to 1.1 million residents over its 1,700-hectare expanse. Unfortunately, this translates to 64,000 residents per sq.km, making it even more population-dense than Kwun Tong, the city’s most congested neighbourhood (57,000 people per sq.km). Significant adjustments, then, clearly need to be made.

In line with this, an exacting financial cost benefit analysis needs to be conducted to ensure the project is truly viable. More specifically, the likely profit from the sales of any retail, office or residential real estate needs to be weighed up against the overall construction costs.

Finally, there needs to an almost unprecedented degree of transparency with regard to the construction timeline, the benefits of any new business district, the upside of enhanced integration with the GBA and, above all, the actual benefits that will accrue to everyday Hongkongers. Without such assurances, many believe it may be best to leave the local breams, snappers and croakers largely undisturbed.

Text: Tenzing Thondup

For the full article, please find the latest issue of Gafencu’s print magazine or the PDF version on the Gafencu app. Download the app from the Google Play Store or Apple App Store.