Is owning a home only a dream to Hong Kong citizens, and how long will it continue?
Hong Kong has long been admired as an international financial centre, symbolizing prosperity and opportunity. Ideally, it should be a place where citizens feel a strong sense of belonging and pride. However, many Hongkongers experience quite the opposite, they continuously feel exhausted, frustrated, particularly those living in cramped subdivided flats or “cage homes”. The story behind this glowing and sparkling Hong Kong’s image as a “paradise” disclosed the lived reality of its people stems largely from one of the city’s most pressing social problems: unaffordable housing. Between 2004 and 2021, the real price index of residential homes in Hong Kong rose by 239 percent, even though the real wage index grew by only 7.1 percent (Michael B. Wong, 2022). This stark imbalance has crushed the dreams of many citizens hoping to buy a home in their own cities.
Hong Kong’s housing system was originally built on a simple idea: a “staircase” that lets people climb toward better living conditions - from public rental housing (PRH) to private homeownership. But that staircase is now broken. Instead of encouraging upward mobility, it has trapped countless families in a cycle of dependency, where getting out of public housing feels as distant as winning the Mark Six lottery.
First, I would like to dive into the heart of the current housing policy to further expand my idea on the unsustainable public rental housing system. Currently, the government’s development priorities further exaggerate the problem. Despite a clear slowdown in demand for office space, significant resources continue to be devoted to constructing commercial buildings. Research shows that vacancy rates in Grade A offices have reached 13.2% in Central and 21% in Kowloon East which is equivalent to an extra spare of 8 million square feet. Given post-pandemic changes in working culture,shifts in work from home, the government should reconsider whether further development of new CBD areas, such as “CBD3” is still necessary. Instead, these sites could be reallocated for public or affordable housing to meet pressing community needs.
It’s hard not to ask: why keep building more offices when so many people don’t even have a livable home? Instead of chasing commercial prestige, the government could redirect some of that land and budget toward housing that meets real human needs.
During the pandemic, Hong Kong introduced a new concept called “light housing”, using a modular approach to speed up construction and reduce costs. This method can save 23% in construction expenses and shorten the building time to just a year and a half. The government plans to introduce 30,000 extra units in the next five years which should be able to provide more affordable housing to the group in need and if well-maintained, the “light housing” can last as long as the “traditional housing”, uncovering a brand new page of the building sector. The construction method is similar to building a lego, adopting standardised design and integrating with the Modular Integrated Construction approach. It requires earlier accomplishment of the separate components at the Greater Bay Area and then transport to Hong Kong and collide the pieces into whole. But like many ideas in Hong Kong, the execution tells a mixed story. Some projects such as those managed by the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals, have been applauded for good design and community support. Others, like Kai Fook Kui Estate, fell flat due to poor living conditions and surprisingly high rents.
The construction of transitional housing is led by the Government but the maintenance is managed by the private NGOs operators which raised the concern of incoherent management and unstable quality. Without consistent monitoring, quality and fairness vary wildly. If the government wants transitional and light housing to truly work, it needs to take a stronger initiative in setting standards and ensuring long-term livability. Otherwise, what was meant as a lifeline could easily become another short-term patch. If this issue has been solved, the implementation of transitional housing in the long run can be seen as a hack.
The government has launched various housing schemes for example the Sale for the Elderly and Harmonious Families Priority Scheme but their real impact remains questionable. These initiatives may sound compassionate, but they often miss the deeper issues. For instance, some critics argue that they unintentionally discourage ambition, which is the reality in some sort of sense. PRH eligibility is closely tied to income, many younger applicants choose to keep their salaries below the threshold to stay qualified. It is a strange phenomenon - one that rewards staying stagnant rather than striving forward. Instead of empowering citizens to improve their circumstances, the current structure traps them in a comfort zone of survival rather than progress. A strong and mature society should help people move upward, not make them afraid of earning too much.
Singapore with a similar regional and cultural background has instead achieved something remarkable. More than 80% of Singaporeans own their homes, compared to about just 50% in Hong Kong. This difference can be traced back to the imposition of a strong policy - Build to Order. Hong Kong and Singapore are both virtually government-owned land. In fact, Hong Kong’s land is heavily sold to the private developer which results in difficulties in implementing the government policy, the housing market is continuously being stirred by the private developer. Land availability also plays a significant role. In Singapore, only 5% of land is classified as protected and unavailable for development, whereas in Hong Kong, 66% of the total land area is designated as protected, including parks and green belt areas (Chin and Strand, 2008). If the Hong Kong government could responsibly release or repurpose even a small fraction of that land, it could significantly shorten the PRH waiting time and encourage the “sandwich” group to flow upwards.
How does Hong Kong achieve the same noise and effect as Singapore? Singapore thinks in a wider picture and scope, not only focusing on the basic housing necessity, but further expanding the community needs. It is valuable for us to reflect why there is no appeal to the newly introduced Northern Metropolis Conceptual Boundary to citizens even with the advertisement of professional hub, industrial zone and increased job opportunities. Both sounds similar on paper, but how it targets the users may be a key to success. Although it would be simple, however, Hong Kong could not duplicate Singapore’s model into practice due to its deep-down difference in political structure between two places which limits the transfer of policy ideas.
Public rental housing should be a mechanism and engine to drive people to better but affordable living flats, but seemingly the housing conditions have not been improved for a lot of unsheltered people. The housing crisis isn’t just about economics - it’s about dignity. Having a safe, decent home is one of the most basic human rights, yet thousands of Hong Kongers are still without one. Typically improving the low-income families who are living in Tong Lau, typical subdivided homes in old, worn out buildings is a stressing issue. Recently,
many Hong Kongers rely on NGOs like Impact Hong Kong, which provides support for street sleepers. It is inspiring but concerning that charities often lead the charge in helping the city become more vulnerable. So what is the role and rights of the Government in opting a resident for the street sleepers and why do they not allocate to the public rental housing system. With the recent introduction of transition housing, hopefully a reduced amount of street sleepers can be seen.
Hong Kong’s housing affects the entire economy. Which working families spend most of their income on rent, they have little left to invest, start businesses, or plan for the future. Many are looking north to the Mainland, where the same amount of money buys a larger apartment and a better quality of life. This quiet exodus hurts Hong Kong’s reputation as a
world-class financial centre. A city can’t thrive when its people lose faith in their future. And that is what is happening: young people see no hope for homeownership, so they stop trying, keeping their income intentionally low to qualify. It is a cycle that weakens ambition and the city’s competitive edge.
Fixing Hong Kong’s housing problem isn’t just about numbers or land supply, it should be through the root - restoring and creating hope for the future. The government needs to think long-term - not just build more units, but create communities that people can afford and feel proud to live in. As expected, the “sandwich” group who are trying to improve their living, often stuck in the middle, are the most neglected. Unexpectedly, lowest value homes prices grew weirdly faster than the high value homes. Hong Kong could take a cue from Singapore’s policies that let young couples who are planning to marry within a short period of time to apply jointly for affordable housing. This not only helps with housing affordability but could also boost the declining birth rate - one stone with two birds.
Will residing in a standard apartment still long be a dream for Hong Kongers? It is certainly worth discussing. But kickstarting the government and society to rethink priorities may start a new brand chapter. Housing should not be luxury - it is a basic necessity everyone should access and a foundation of creating a healthy and sustainable city.
