This article was inspired by a YouTube video published by Vox media that provided an insight into a form of housing in Hong Kong called ‘Cage Homes’. The video raised some interesting points that led me to delve a little deeper into why people are living in squalid conditions in such a developed region. Although informative, like many of the videos Vox makes this one doesn’t always give a full representation of the topic being covered. It fails to mention that 30.4% of citizens live in adequate public housing while another 15% occupy government subsidised housing – suggesting the cage home problem isn’t as widespread as its made out to be. However, these statistics cannot completely mask the inequality and problems that are deep rooted into the Hong Kong housing network.
Hong Kong, in its limited land space has always struggled with overpopulation, and so cage homes quickly became an easy solution to a difficult problem. In the 1950s and 60s, cage homes were becoming a more and more common housing solution for Hong Kong’s growing population. A surge in birth rates paired with an influx of mainland Chinese migrants escaping the civil war meant the Hong Kong population grew by 55% in the space of 10 years (1951-1961). The government began to build a series of public housing estates but were unable to cope with the constant increase in population – thus causing the birth of cage homes. While there are still a lot of the original style metal wire mesh cages being used, a lot of Sub-divided units (SDUs) also make use of ‘coffin homes’ which are not much more than a windowless closet. Seen as a viable solution to the problem, many landlords divide up existing apartments into smaller sections; each area having two or three stacked beds separated by metal cages. The Hong Kong government legally recognise the cage homes, but under the label ‘bedspace apartments’ that are defined as:
In 2015, the number of residents living in these SDUs was around 200,000, and although this only amounted to just under 3% of the total population, there were still 1.6 million citizens living in poverty. The conditions of these cage homes are barely humane – in fact they are not much better than prison cells or living on the street. Subdivided apartments are more common in older districts where the infrastructure dates back to the 50s and 60s, and subsequently the safety and hygiene conditions are often just as outdated.
Many of the apartment buildings that house cage homes lack smoke detectors and fire alarm systems while many residents are forced to share a single electrical outlet that aren’t frequently checked by regulatory bodies. Due to the lack of regular cleaning, the apartments are rife with insects and bacteria, causing these cage homes to become a filthy breeding ground for disease. In the summer, alongside temperatures reaching above 30°C, the Hong Kong climate is incredible humid, making the dirty, overcrowded cage homes an extremely unpleasant environment to live in. The costs for a cage home can reach up to HK$2500 a month (equivalent to just under £250) – an extortionate price to pay for what is no more than a metal cage or windowless room the size of a parking space.
For such a developed state, serious questions can be asked as to why cage homes and SDUs still exist in Hong Kong. The housing market in Hong Kong is the most expensive in the world and the creation of public housing is simply not keeping up. At the heart of this crisis is not only rocketing land prices but also the practice of bad land management. Only 3.7% of Hong Kong is zoned for high density urban housing – so what’s the rest of the land being used for? The mountainous and rocky terrain in parts of Hong Kong is a considerable factor to bring in; after all, it would be ridiculous to attempt to try and build on these areas. However, there is still plenty of usable space that could be dedicated to either more housing, or larger housing land spaces. All land in Hong Kong is centrally owned and controlled by the government (except for one church built during the British occupation). The land is leased out to developers through auction and with minimal housing space, these segments of land often go for a pretty price to foreign developers. In Hong Kong, there are very low taxation rates and so in order to generate money, much of the government revenue is driven by land sales. Therefore, to offset high land prices, developers and subsequent landlords will charge astronomical prices for tiny spaces of accommodation. This prices out many residents from a decent amount of living space, meaning these people typically end up in SDUs like cage homes. While socially there is a clear motive to remove the cage homes from the housing ladder, economically there is little incentives for the government to do this – after all they would see a reduction to their own land sale revenue.
As shown in the graph below, the median price of a house is more than 20 times the annual median household income – meaning cage home residents are usually elderly people, low-skilled labourers and other low-income citizens. Government subsidies can cover parts of the rental payments, but usually the residents are living with meagre incomes and so struggle to break free from poverty.
The Vox video didn’t present many solutions, but it did showcase an innovative new business proposition in which the cage home received a futuristic update. Inspired by Japanese capsule hotels, Chinese Entrepreneur Sandy Wong designed what he calls ‘luxury cage homes’. These pods are of a similar size to the original mesh cages (perhaps slightly bigger), but they come with air conditioning, a TV, mirror and LED lighting. But are these features all just a smokescreen to jazz up what again is just a windowless ‘coffin’. Safety hazards such as accessibility and fire escape route have highlighted some negatives in the design process, not to mention these pods are still ridiculously expensive for what they are (prices can reach £400 a month). With the luxury cage homes not exactly providing a suitable large scale solution, the question remains as to how can Hong Kong solve this problem?
I think the first step needed is to re-calibrate its priorities and acknowledge the fact that the current system is not good enough. To have a segment of land sell for £1.2 billion and not care about the welfare of your own citizens is the root of the problem. I have no problem with the Hong Kong government selling off land holdings and generating revenue, but the astronomical prices are entering a ridiculous stratosphere. With the large reserves of money the government has accrued, methods such as releasing land to the market whenever home prices were higher than the average cost of developing residential sites would perhaps change prevailing market expectations that property prices will only go up.
In its simplest terms, the problem is there aren’t enough properties at an entry-level/affordable price. As such, the best solution in simplest terms would be to build more public housing or release more land to re-balance the supply and demand ratio. However, the possible ramifications of this could be a slight increase in corporate tax which could lead many businesses to relocate key offices. This trade off is really the heart of the issue and I think moving forward, Hong Kong needs to decide whether it will favour the corporations or the people – it can’t do both.
An insightful thought- provoking article on the issues surrounding the Hong Kong housing crisis, in particular the cramped overpriced cage boxes.
It leads to the question of where the trade-off will be in the future to allow for a more humane and sustainable housing solution in an already crowded city.
Absolutely – and this is not just a problem restricted to the domestic sector. In the commercial realm, many workers experience awful conditions due to the dictatorial role profit margins and sales have on the overall values of a large scale company
An interesting read – reminding me of various apartments I visited during the 1970s, and although cramped by our standards for the number of people living in the flats they were nothing like the small units described here.
Glad you enjoyed the read! The fact that cramped flats date back to when you visited in the 70s shows just how much of a deep-rooted problem this is. Unless change is implemented soon, the economic disparity of Hong Kong could continue to grow amidst rising tensions in the region.
An interesting article and a damning indictment of a housing market captured by financialization. This is not restricted to Hong Kong with the UK seeing a rise in Permitted Developments resulting in commercial office floorspace change Use Class to residential. In principle a sound solution to housing shortages but in reality the result is often partitioning space into tiny spaces providing unfit living conditions. These are often in areas not designed for community living e.g. in industrial estates. As the article points out, land values are a problem underpinned by an extractive rentier business model that only benefits those in power. The finance-real estate complex has become too embedded in the economy. Until there is the political will to address land values (capped or diverted to the benefit of the community) alongside large scale public sector led social house building then the problem will not be solved. The private sector business model cannot and will not solve this. Right-to-buy and Stamp Duty holidays only cause an uplift in house price inflation and rarely (if ever) benefit those it is designed to help.