Comparison - Executive Summary
The page consists of three parts:
-
Part I: Comparison of The Sixth Generation with the fifth generation of public rental housings (PRH) in terms of number of flats and capacity
-
Part II: The estimated number of the applicant and general waiting time for a flat of PRH before and after the introduction of the Sixth Generation
-
Part III: Comparison of different co-living housing projects around the world with The Sixth Generation
Part I:
The figure for comparison on the level of development is derived from the figure on the level per floor, which is multiplied by the average number of floor per building and the number of block per development with the underlying assumption that all the floors in all buildings in the same development adopt the same layout.
There are three types of flats, capable of accommodating one person, two people and four people. The size of the flats are derived with reference to private co-living space in Hong Kong while the proportion between three models is derived with the projection on household size in the coming 10 years with our own adjustments for maintaining single-living person as the major targeted customer segment.
The result of the comparison shows that there are approximately 120% to 180% increase in the number of flats and 10% to 50% increase in capacity.​
% increase in the number of flats:
178%
% increase capacity:
53%
% increase in the number of flats:
118%
% increase capacity:
13%
Part II:
The projected reduction on the number of general applicants and average waiting time is derived from the data on the multiplication of future supply of land for constructing PRH and highest percentage allocated for constructing the Sixth Generation obtained from the ratio between the number of general applicants and non-elderly one-person applicants (1.28 : 1) from HA and increase in capacity of The Sixth Generation compared with the fifth generation of PRH with the assumption that the number of new applicants, 58,300 obtained from local news report prevails in the future.
The result shows that there is around 17% decrease in the average waiting time and number of general applicants.
Part III:
Apart from the quantity side, it is also important to look at the quality side of the new co-living public housing model. Case studies of foreign co-living housing projects were conducted and comparison was made so as to provide benchmarking for our project and lessons were drawn from their success and experience.