{"title":"最低限度的政府援助:规划战后香港的平房安置区","authors":"Carmen C. M. Tsui","doi":"10.1080/02665433.2023.2187868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT After the Second World War, large squatter areas flourished everywhere, threatening Hong Kong’s safety and sanitation. In 1948, the government took action and required squatters to move to designated resettlement areas where they would be less of a public nuisance. There, evicted squatters could build simple cottages or huts at their own expense. Most cottage resettlement areas were located on steep hillsides unsuitable for permanent development. Interestingly, the cottage resettlement areas were initially portrayed by the government as a solution to the squatter problem, but they have since been deemed a wasteful use of prime urban land. What made the government change its attitude towards the cottage resettlement areas? This study challenges the common narrative that often describes cottage resettlement as a failed squatter resettlement strategy that was quickly replaced by a massive programme to construct multi-storey resettlement estates. It demonstrates the way cottage resettlement was used as one of the means of resettlement alongside the direct government construction of resettlement housing. Further, it shows how the self-built nature of the cottage resettlement areas was preferred by a government that maintained a principal policy of offering only minimal assistance and public funding to squatter resettlement.","PeriodicalId":46569,"journal":{"name":"Planning Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimum government assistance: planning cottage resettlement areas in post-war Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"Carmen C. M. Tsui\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02665433.2023.2187868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT After the Second World War, large squatter areas flourished everywhere, threatening Hong Kong’s safety and sanitation. In 1948, the government took action and required squatters to move to designated resettlement areas where they would be less of a public nuisance. There, evicted squatters could build simple cottages or huts at their own expense. Most cottage resettlement areas were located on steep hillsides unsuitable for permanent development. Interestingly, the cottage resettlement areas were initially portrayed by the government as a solution to the squatter problem, but they have since been deemed a wasteful use of prime urban land. What made the government change its attitude towards the cottage resettlement areas? This study challenges the common narrative that often describes cottage resettlement as a failed squatter resettlement strategy that was quickly replaced by a massive programme to construct multi-storey resettlement estates. It demonstrates the way cottage resettlement was used as one of the means of resettlement alongside the direct government construction of resettlement housing. Further, it shows how the self-built nature of the cottage resettlement areas was preferred by a government that maintained a principal policy of offering only minimal assistance and public funding to squatter resettlement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Perspectives\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2023.2187868\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2023.2187868","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Minimum government assistance: planning cottage resettlement areas in post-war Hong Kong
ABSTRACT After the Second World War, large squatter areas flourished everywhere, threatening Hong Kong’s safety and sanitation. In 1948, the government took action and required squatters to move to designated resettlement areas where they would be less of a public nuisance. There, evicted squatters could build simple cottages or huts at their own expense. Most cottage resettlement areas were located on steep hillsides unsuitable for permanent development. Interestingly, the cottage resettlement areas were initially portrayed by the government as a solution to the squatter problem, but they have since been deemed a wasteful use of prime urban land. What made the government change its attitude towards the cottage resettlement areas? This study challenges the common narrative that often describes cottage resettlement as a failed squatter resettlement strategy that was quickly replaced by a massive programme to construct multi-storey resettlement estates. It demonstrates the way cottage resettlement was used as one of the means of resettlement alongside the direct government construction of resettlement housing. Further, it shows how the self-built nature of the cottage resettlement areas was preferred by a government that maintained a principal policy of offering only minimal assistance and public funding to squatter resettlement.
期刊介绍:
Planning Perspectives is a peer-reviewed international journal of history, planning and the environment, publishing historical and prospective articles on many aspects of plan making and implementation. Subjects covered link the interest of those working in economic, social and political history, historical geography and historical sociology with those in the applied fields of public health, housing construction, architecture and town planning. The Journal has a substantial book review section, covering UK, North American and European literature.