Revitlaizing the past, empowering the future : an empirical study on external benefit of historic buiding revitalization

Abstract

The past is the foundation of the future. To learn more about ourselves and our origins, one must delve into the history of the place in which we reside. Preservation of built heritage serves as a reminder of the past and helps us to better understand ourselves. Through adaptive reuse and revitalization, not only can physical built heritage be preserved, but land and social resources can also be utilized. Like other parts of the world, Hong Kong (HK) is revitalizing some of its most valuable historic real estate, which also serves as a witness to HK’s history. However, the debate between development and conservation persists. Even within the conservation argument, there have been criticisms of over-commercialization and loss of original characteristics. With increasing awareness of self-identity and revitalization projects, it is a high time to investigate the best mode of revitalization to be adopted. This paper includes a summary of heritage management practices, illustrating the past and present preferences of the HK Government and residents towards built heritage. Three major hypotheses are proposed in this study. Hypothesis 1 is that a more community-oriented revitalization project can generate greater external benefits for the nearby community. Hypothesis 2 is that the income and education levels of a district is positively correlated with the benefits of a revitalization project. Hypothesis 3 is that the agglomeration of revitalization can bring additional benefits to the community. This paper adopts a quantitative research method and utilizes the hedonic pricing model to generate 10 models around 7 revitalization projects: Blue House Cluster, Woo Cheong Pawn Shop, 7 Mallory Street, 186 Queen’s Road East, Lui Seng Chun, 200 Prince Edward Road West, and 618 Shanghai Street. Case studies are included to explore the current provisions of these projects. The empirical research results indicate that Hypothesis 1 is valid, while Hypothesis 2 is rejected and Hypothesis 3 is partially rejected. The empirical results show that community-oriented revitalization projects such as Blue House Cluster and Lui Seng Chun significantly induced more benefits for the neighboring community. However, in a cross-district comparison, Wan Chai, a district with higher income and education levels than Mong Kok, did not show an exceptionally higher price premium for properties located near revitalization projects. This implies that residents in Wan Chai may not have a higher willingness to pay for residential units in close proximity to revitalized projects than residents in Mong Kok. Lastly, the empirical research showed that the Blue House Cluster and 186 Queen’s Road East revitalization projects had a significant synergy effect that created an additional price premium. In contrast, the Woo Cheong Pawn Shop and 186 Queen’s Road East revitalization projects showed no or negligible synergy effect. This implies that the agglomeration of revitalization projects may not necessarily result in a synergy effect and requires careful planning. In conclusion, the study suggests that community-oriented revitalization projects are likely to generate greater benefits for the nearby community in terms of externalities. Therefore, policy makers should prioritize community engagement and participation in the planning process of revitalization projects. However, the impact of district income and education level on property prices near revitalization projects is not significant, implying that revitalization projects should be accessible to all residents regardless of their socioeconomic status. Moreover, the agglomeration of revitalization projects may not necessarily result in synergy effects, and careful planning is required to ensure successful revitalization projects. Overall, policy makers should adopt a holistic approach that balances the preservation of built heritage with the needs and interests of the community.