Tai O Fire and Community Action

On July 23, 2000, Tai O residents whose home were devastated by the blaze take an initiative to rebuild their homes.  The move is challenging the government which requests the residents to halt reconstruction. The event clearly shows that Tai O residents have a strong sense of place in Tai O and thus act against the government for the protection of their home.

As the government had not yet made decision on allowing the residents to rebuild their home. Tai O residents felt dissatisfied and staged protest against the government in July 8. At the Central Government Office, they chanted anti-government slogans in pressing the government to meet their demand. Tai Po residents thought that the government would attempt to delay the decision in order to dry out the enthusiasm of the residents for the reconstruction of new home. 

According to the information from Tai O residents, during the 1970s, the government has ever forced the residents to admit that the structure of stilt houses is squatter with the purpose to exclude the residents from owning lands. Otherwise she would have demolish all the stilt homes. For this historical reason, Tai Po residents are very skeptical about the government actions.

In this event, there is one interesting phenomenon that a majority of the residents declines to move to public housing estates. According to the statistics, of the 70 households displaced by the blaze, 65 were staying with fellow villages or friends. Only one has accepted the government public housing flat and  four have registered to move into the public housing estate. If they do not have a strong sense of place in the ruined areas of stilt houses, why do they not move to public housing flats?

If the government really would like to support community development, why does she not support the villagers to rebuild their home? Actually the government can help residents to build  limited equity housing cooperatives if the residents accept this arrangement. This type of housing development, according to American experience, can provide home ownership for residents but limit the resident's resale for a higher price. Under this arrangement, the residents would not fear that the government would resume land for other purposes. Besides, the low income people have an opportunity to own and manage a place collectively. Of course, the government and other professionals should give hands to them. 

Under the existing institution, there is no mechanism for residents to borrow money with low interest rate to rebuild their community. Unlike the Hong Kong government, the American government in 90s have established urban redevelopment block for residents to redevelop their community. In Hong Kong, without financial support, residents do not have capacity to implement any reconstruction and lose an opportunity to create their community collectively. Meanwhile, the chance for promoting community development is also missing.

The external assitance to Tai O five victims is not missing. The associate professor in the department of architecture at the University of Hong Kong takes initiative to draw a reconstruction plan for villagers. With his knowledge of modern building technology, a more sustainable and safe housing is introduced.  According to the information provided by South China Morning Post, the plan suggests to use cement based steel pillars, instead of wooden pillars in strengthening the foundation of new housing. In avoiding the firing threat, the plan designs to separate kitchen from living rooms and create an open space between every five houses. Besides, more systematic sewerage system and electricity system would be introduced.  To preserve the old village characteristics, the tradition outlook of the upper part of village houses would be perserved as well. 

It is very impressive that the architect profession can take a move to facilitate community development in Tai O. What about the profession of urban planning? In school, professors always convey the message that citizen participation is crucial to  achieve equity planning. Now where are they gone? This is a good chance for planners to initiate community planning in practice.