Search

The high property price syndrome in Hong Kong has led to heightened concern about the role of landed capital in property development. Recently, the hegemony of the real estate industry has become a buzzword in local literature, but unfortunately there is neither adequate theoretical articulation nor informed understanding of the concept of hegemony. There is widespread misunderstanding of hegemony, equating it to domination by property tycoons. The local literature has overlooked the government-business collusion in constructing the common sense of society so as to dominate others. Through an empirical investigation of the redevelopment of 'Government/Institution or Community' (G/IC) land in Hong Kong, this article attempts to offer an alternative explanation to the land question of G/IC redevelopment by highlighting that the everyday life of the silent majority and of professionals has in fact perpetuated the hegemony of the real estate industry in Hong Kong. It is argued that the government, property developers, professionals, charitable organisations and the general public have altogether participated, in different ways and to different extents, in the capital accumulation projects of leading developer conglomerates in Hong Kong. A land (re)development regime has thus contributed to the property boom in Hong Kong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the domination of land and real estate developers in Hong Kong, China. The author notes that the developers impose an image of Hong Kong that is favorable to the world, but is not necessarily accurate. As an example the author notes the torch relay for 2008 Summer Olympics. He points out that the majority of torch bearers were those involved in the real estate business, not athletes as is usually associated with the event. He also points out that the route of the relay bypasses the more impoverished areas of Hong Kong, favoring well developed areas instead. The author goes on to note that apartment rent prices are the highest in the world helped in part by what he calls the (re)development regime.

This paper attempts to build on these published works by examining the role planning has played in directing development in Shenzhen, Guangdong Sheng, China. "Planning" in this paper is not restricted to spatial land use planning, but rather also includes socio-economic planning. Integration of these two types of planning is essential because socioeconomic activities must take place in physical space, and if spatial planning is not integrated with socioeconomic planning, the latter will be very difficult to implement. This paper is divided into two main parts. The first part argues that existing theoretical perspectives do not adequately explain the Shenzhen experiment. However, one thing is certain, socioeconomic and spatial planning by the central and local governments has played a major role in the transformation of Shenzhen from a rural county into a modem metropolis. The second part of the paper analyzes in detail how planning rhetoric was fashioned to accommodate the development realities of Shenzhen over time.

This paper takes issue with the desakota model developed by Terry McGee by elucidating the illegal land use and construction in the rural–urban transition zone in China, with the additional case study of Tianhe Village in Guangzhou City. The paper emphasises the need to examine the geography of illegal activities along the approach of geographies of difference. It has shown that illegal land use and construction is prevalent in rural China. In rural areas where cultivated land has been converted to non-agricultural purposes, peasants are left with no alternative but to use land and construct buildings illegally. Some have increased their income by leasing out flats to migrant workers, whereas others have not been able to do this. This study has revealed that underneath the positive and integrative picture portrayed by the desakota model is its negative and disintegrative counterpart. Illegal land use and construction is one such example. Unless we incorporate both into our studies, we will not be able to comprehend the urban morphology of Chinese city regions in the new millennium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]