Urban Renewal Authority

Statutory body in Hong Kong

the South Australian entity of this name

The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) is a quasi governmental, profit making statutory body in Hong Kong responsible for accelerating urban redevelopment.

The authority's predecessor, the Land Development Corporation (土地發展公司, or 土發 for short), was founded in 1988. The new Urban Renewal Authority was founded in 1999 with the aim of speeding up urban renewal. Difficulties reaching agreement on compensation packages for people affected by planned redevelopments delayed the actual commencement of the URA. The agency was finally established on 1 May 2001 and the LDC was dissolved the same day. A main difference between the former LDC and the URA is the URA's ability to directly resume land (akin to expropriation in other countries). The LDC was required to undertake lengthy negotiations with owners in order to acquire land, and had to demonstrate that it had taken all steps to acquire land on a fair and reasonable basis before it could apply to the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands for compulsory land resumption. The difficulty in overriding dissenting property owners was the main reason the LDC was slow to undertake urban renewal. Unlike the LDC, the URA is also tax exempt. Urban renewal in Hong Kong typically involves relatively large scale redevelopment of urban areas, rather than piecemeal rebuilding of individual buildings or the provision of specific facilities. Streets are often closed, combining smaller urban blocks into larger superblocks. When urban renewal is announced for a specific area, a "freezing survey" is undertaken to identify the current inhabitants, with an aim to preventing opportunists from moving into urban renewal sites in order to receive compensation. The URA then compensates owners and demolishes the district. URA redevelopments generally comprise luxury shopping centres and luxury residential developments. With the stated aim to address the problem of urban decay and improve the living conditions of residents in dilapidated areas, the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (Chapter 563) was enacted in July 2000. The Ordinance provides a new institutional framework for carrying out urban renewal in locations that the private market finds unprofitable. The Hong Kong Government conducted a comprehensive review of "Urban Renewal Strategy" in 2008. After two years' 'community engagement', the new strategy was promulgated on 24 Feb 2011. Following this review, the stated strategy of the URA is that Hong Kong's urban renewal should follow three major principles: "Putting People first"; "District Based"; and "Community Participation". Their adherence to these tenets has been questioned by some, including legislator Kenneth Chan, who stated that "the URA always puts its interests first" in reference to the controversy surrounding the Graham Street market eviction,

In addition to economic exclusivity and disregard for existing local communities, URA redevelopments have also been criticised for poor urban design, such as long stretches of blank wall at ground level which effectively kills the vibrant street life for which older districts are known.

Lee Tung Street , better known by its local nickname "Wedding Card Street" , was famous for its printing shops that sell custom made wedding cards, coloured bright red for good luck. Tens of thousands purchased their wedding cards in the area in the preceding decades, and the district was also the birthplace of the publishing business in Hong Kong. The wedding card printers and publishers were concerned about the loss of invaluable economic and social networks, having to leave the district due to high real estate prices, and the loss of accessibility to suppliers and customers alike. Under the Land Resumption Ordinance, the URA was able to expropriate tenants and landowners regardless of their will, leading to accusations that URA activities run contrary to public interest and represent an infringement on property rights. This plan later received a Silver Award from the Institute of Planners. Development chief Carrie Lam defended the project, stating that the buildings of Lee Tung Street were "not worth keeping and had little historic value" and that "stopping the plan would jeopardise the city's future planning". The URA and the government went on to demolish the street as planned, and redevelopment is well underway.

Commercial tenants sometimes have a different view towards urban renewal as low cost premises are getting hard to find. Affordable commercial space is not always available in newly developed commercial buildings. Even owner operators of commercial premises are unable to relocate in the same district because the compensation they get from the Urban Renewal Authority does not always match the purchase price of similar sized properties in the same district. It was proposed, therefore, that options should be made available to owners or tenants so that they can choose between physical relocation by developers, cash compensation to allow them buy or rent elsewhere, or wind up their businesses altogether.

At the end of April 2007, Alan Leong Kah kit was dropped from the board of directors of the URA after two years of service. Leong said he was not angry or surprised, and expressed doubt on whether the authority works in the public interest: "The government expects those who are appointed to statutory bodies to shut up and not express any opposing view to the public [ ] It doesn't really matter that I have not been reappointed to the authority. After all, if I really want to work for the people, then there is no point in staying there." Another Civic Party member and Legislative Councillor Tanya Chan was appointed to the URA board in his place. On 30 March 2015, URA Managing Director Iris Tam Siu ying suddenly resigned over what she called (in a letter to staff) "fundamental differences" with chairman Victor So Hing woh over the body's philosophy and mission. Tam objected to So placing profit ahead of the agency's social mission. So, a former Link REIT chief executive, joined the URA in 2013. Tam, a two time president of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners, had been with the URA since 2006, and served as managing director since 2013. As of 2015, she remained a member of the Hong Kong Housing Authority. Tam had objected to various proposals by So, including to outsource URA's acquisition department, and for the organisation to partner with Richfield Realty, a commercial developer. Daniel Lam Chun was appointed interim managing director following Tam's resignation, with Wai Chi sing taking up the position on a permanent basis from 15 June 2016 for a term of three years. The authority's managing director serves as both its administrative head and deputy chairman of its board.

In 2012, the URA was criticised for editing Wikipedia pages about itself, its projects, and certain senior staff including former director Barry Cheung. The edits, on both the Chinese and English Wikipedias, suppressed information unfavourable to the URA and the government and referred to controversial URA projects in a positive light. The URA's director of corporate communications also authored a Wikipedia page about himself that was later deleted. Apple Daily compared the editing to Mainland China's 50 cent party internet commenters paid by the Chinese government to sway public opinion. The Hong Kong Wikimedia Chapter stressed that in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, entities with a conflict of interest should avoid editing.

In 2007, the URA announced a plan to demolish several city blocks of old tong lau on Graham Street and Peel Street , replacing them with a $3.8 billion scheme comprising four high rises: two residential blocks, one office tower, and a hotel. Some 360 property owners and 1,120 residents in 37 existing buildings, built from the pre war years to the 1960s, have been affected. In the process the URA plans to also evict the oldest wet market in the city, founded 1841. and its preservation of "a very traditional Chinese way of life". The shop owners lamented the high rent levels elsewhere, the cost of relocation, the emotional attachment they held to the longstanding marketplace and the loss of their customer base. A second such festival was held in November 2008. The URA responded to this backlash through several proposals. They promised the redevelopment would incorporate an "old shops street" which would, according to managing director Billy Lam Chung lun, "bring back the old charm and streetscapes". Secondly, the URA also promised to build a two storey wet market complex on a lot labelled "site B" to house the displaced vendors. This plan was criticised as the proposed building would accommodate fewer than half the vendors currently operating in the area. By 2013, though vendors had been served eviction notices, no wet market had been constructed. In 2007, URA initially proposed to create a unique "goose egg" shaped multipurpose complex at Hong Ming Road, which is the center of the development project. The "goose egg" proposal was applauded when seen in plans laid on general public. However, later in June 2017, the authority has submitted a revised planning layout regarding the Development Area 4&5 to the Town Planning Board, which revised layout differ greatly from the original planning, the "goose egg" shaped landmark architecture was taken out, and the terrace garden design with water features was absent. The change of plan was kept opaque from the Town Planning Board to the non executive directors in the URA and Kwun Tong District Council, not to mention local residents in Kwun Tong. In response to public criticisms, URA explained the change was caused by management and practicability issue. Lawmaker and Kwun Tong district councilor Jonathan Ho Kai ming criticized that the authority made this move only after it was put under pressure. Similarly, the revised plan was not subjected to any public consultation process. The arbitrary revision of plans clearly indicates a lack of transparency, public understanding and accountability in the URA's decision making process. In regard to this, the public prompts the organization to hold a formal and open public consultation and no to keep the public in the dark, local councilors suggested that Kwun Tong residents should be well consulted over the design of this multi billion dollar project. Apart from being criticized for the vanished "goose egg" major design, URA has been criticized aiming to reap profits with private developers by constructing luxurious flats rather than providing affordable housing to residents. Albert Cheng criticized that URA used market prices to buy up old buildings, however sets compensation benchmark at the price of seven year old buildings in the area. While the redevelopment project involves one of the poorest districts in Hong Kong, the act of URA has been blasted for going against the fundamental principle of gentrification of old districts. The revised design has been further criticized as shifting in favor of commercial operators and developers.

This list is not exhaustive. It also includes projects by the former Land Development Corporation.