新版七十二家房客 「共宅」趨勢須規範化

<轉載自2017年7月25日 明報 社評>

潮流興「共享」，近年本港社會也開始討論「共宅」（Cohousing，亦稱「共居」）概念。共宅理念旨在鼓勵共享資源，重建鄰里關係，目標相當崇高，問題是本港樓市生態嚴重扭曲，如果不規管引導，隨時有可能變成業主或二房東「劏房」剝削賺到盡的華麗新包裝。近期有公司連環租下多個大型屋苑單位劏出房間，向「港漂」內地生和本地年輕單身上班族招手，便明顯是為了牟取厚利多於推動「共享」理念。政府應密切留意「共宅」發展趨勢，加以規範化，提防掛羊頭賣狗肉。

共享經濟大行其道 提防掛羊頭賣狗肉

近日「共宅」概念備受關注，運房局長陳帆表示可以考慮資助社企租用唐樓，改成「合法劏房」，實行類似「七十二家房客」模式，租客共用廚廁；較早前市建局行政總監韋志成亦建議，可以考慮在重建項目加入共用設施，諸如自助洗衣場等。上世紀70年代電影《七十二家房客》一班租客同舟共濟的故事，見證了一個時代的眼淚和辛酸。今時今日官員和輿論討論的新版「七十二家房客」又或「共宅」概念，與當年電影所描寫的情况當然大有差別，不過「活在同一屋簷下」的本質大體相似。

「共宅」居住模式早於1970年代在丹麥出現，其後推廣至歐美，漸成趨勢。近年「共享經濟」大行其道，「共宅」概念亦愈益受到重視。「共宅」是指由一群人共同租住一個較大單位或房屋，大家不僅共用廚房、客飯廳等資源，還會分擔家務，透過定期「共煮」加強感情，互相照顧幫助，重新建立鄰里關係。兩年前，台灣一批青年便以「共宅」概念，在台北建立「玖樓」；本港也有團體試辦「共宅」，向能夠負擔不多於6000元租金的初出茅廬年輕人招手。不過就算再崇高漂亮的理念，一旦實踐落地生根，總會受到社會現實環境所影響，意義也會出現變化。「共宅」在歐美針對的是人際關係疏離問題，惟對本港來說，最大意義卻是協助解決青年「無樓住」的問題。

6年前政府提出「青年宿舍計劃」，由政府全數資助非政府機構，利用團體已有土地興建宿舍，為年輕人提供遠低於巿值租金的百多呎宿舍式單位，最多租住5年，照顧青年住屋需要，同時讓他們有機會儲蓄。整幢青年宿舍有不少共享空間和共用設施，性質跟「共宅」概念有相通之處，問題是政府落實計劃太慢，6個青年宿舍項目，第一個最快明年底才落成，另有4個項目落成日期僅為「待定」，令人質疑當局無心經營，反而有私人財團看好市場潛力，兩年前開始收購唐樓並翻新成青年宿舍出租。本港樓價高企，租樓艱難，年輕人無法應付高昂租金，遑論儲錢買樓，「共宅」理論上可以成為另一種選擇，然而如果政府不好好規管引導，「共宅」很容易異化，變成牟取暴利的幌子。

樓市扭曲有求有供 監管引導政府有責

最近有公司大規模從事單位拆租業務，連環租下多個大型屋苑單位，然後大規模改動單位間隔，劏房出租，角色猶如「二房東」，招攬租客對象主要是從內地來港讀書的「港漂」，惟亦歡迎本地單身客和年輕上班族。公司集團式經營這些所謂「女生公寓」和「男生公寓」，租客每月租金由4000至6000元不等，至於廚廁和儲物室則屬共用。一間原本3房的單位，劏成5房「公寓」，全屋最多共住8人，若悉數租出，可比直接出租原本單位多賺六成；部分房間呎租達到100元，更相當於「山頂豪宅價」。整個營運手法，實際更似是經營劏房，多於「青年公寓」又或「共宅共居」，經營邏輯也不似是鼓勵租客共享資源互相照顧，反而予人「有錢賺到盡」之感。有法律界人士關注這類單位會否涉及違例改動間隔，指出一旦遇上火災或盜竊等問題，一眾青年租客未必得到正常法律保障。政府需要跟進個案，並思考對「共宅共居」的監管。

「共享經濟」的核心是善用「閒置資源」，集團式「假共宅真劏房」顯然沾不上邊。誠然，就像納米樓一樣，「假共宅真劏房」的出現，不過是本港樓市嚴重扭曲的產物，「港漂」和初出茅廬青年對廉價租屋需求殷切，自然有人想方設法滿足市場，趁機牟利，政府的角色應當是採取合理規範和引導，避免出現不健康現象，一如不應任由納米樓「愈建愈細」。隨着人口老化，獨居長者愈來愈多，外國已有人研究將「共宅」概念引伸到長者共住互相照顧的可能，亦有退休長者因為獨居住宅生活孤單，選擇廉價出租房間予年輕人，協助處理屋內雜務，跨代共住。本港獨居長者有近三成住在自置物業，儘管未必人人願意與陌生人共住，然而相信亦有長者寧願日常生活有人照應，不想孤孤單單，政府部門和社企不妨考慮協助這類「長者」尋找「共宅同伴」。

Cohousing is a concept deserving of consideration

AS the concept of "sharing" is on trend, the topic of "cohousing" has attracted discussion in Hong Kong society recently.

The recent attention on the "cohousing" concept has led Frank Chan, the Secretary for Transport and Housing, to say that it is an option to subsidise social enterprises to rent old buildings and turn them into "legal subdivided units" where tenants share the kitchen and washroom as depicted in the movie The House of 72 Tenants. Earlier Wai Chi Sing, managing director of the Urban Renewal Authority, also suggested the addition of communal facilities (such as a self-service laundry) in renewal projects. Shot in the 1970s, The House of 72 Tenants depicts the sorrows and hardships of an era through the story of a group of tenants who help each other. The new version of The House of 72 Tenants or the concept of "cohousing" that government officials and members of society talk about today are of course very different from the depictions of the movie, but the fundamental idea of "we live under the same roof" is basically the same.

Having originated in 1970s Denmark, the concept of "cohousing" later spread to other parts of Europe as well as the United States and became a trend. In recent years, as the concept of the "sharing economy" holds sway, "cohousing" has gained increasing importance. "Cohousing" refers to the practice of renting a large apartment or house by a group of people who share not only resources such as the kitchen, living room and dining room but also the responsibility of household chores. They strengthen their bond through activities such as "co-cooking". They help and lean on each other in a way that re-establishes the relationship between neighbours.

Under the Youth Hostel Scheme introduced by the government six years ago, the government fully subsidises non-governmental organisations and uses the land held by these groups to build hostels. These hostel rooms, which have an area of one hundred feet or so, are then leased to young people at rents much lower than market levels for a maximum of five years in order to address their housing needs and allow them to save up. As such a hostel has a lot of shared space and communal facilities, its nature has something in common with the idea of cohousing. The problem is the slow pace of the government's implementation of the plan. Of the six Youth Hostel projects, the first will not be completed until late next year, while the completion dates of four are "to be decided". This makes people doubtful about the government's commitment to the plan. Some private consortiums, in contrast, have identified the potential of the market as a bonanza and have been acquiring and renovating old buildings and turning them into hostels for young people over the past two years. Hong Kong property prices are high, making it difficult to rent an apartment. Young people find it impossible to pay high rents let alone saving up to buy their own flats. Theoretically speaking, "cohousing" can become another choice. However, if the government does not do a good job of regulating it and providing guidance, "cohousing" could degenerate into a pretext for making exorbitant profits.

At the core of the "sharing economy" is the utilisation of "idle resources". This, apparently, bears no resemblance to the practice of creating subdivided units under the pretext of "cohousing" by corporations. Indeed, such a practice, just like nano flats, is a product of Hong Kong's grossly distorted property market. Given the huge demand for cheap apartments for rent from mainlanders who came to Hong Kong to study and Hong Kong young people who are making a start on developing their careers, it is natural that some people are leaving no stones unturned to satisfy the demand and make money. The government should play a role in providing appropriate regulation and guidance to prevent any pernicious effects from occurring as much as it should prevent nano flats from getting smaller and smaller.

新版七十二家房客 「共宅」趨勢須規範化

潮流興「共享」，近年本港社會也開始討論「共宅」（Cohousing，亦稱「共居」）概念。

近日「共宅」概念備受關注，運房局長陳帆表示可以考慮資助社企租用唐樓，改成「合法劏房」，實行類似「七十二家房客」模式，租客共用廚廁；較早前市建局行政總監韋志成亦建議，可以考慮在重建項目加入共用設施，諸如自助洗衣場等。上世紀70年代電影《七十二家房客》一班租客同舟共濟的故事，見證了一個時代的眼淚和辛酸。今時今日官員和輿論討論的新版「七十二家房客」又或「共宅」概念，與當年電影所描寫的情况當然大有差別，不過「活在同一屋簷下」的本質大體相似。

「共宅」居住模式早於1970年代在丹麥出現，其後推廣至歐美，漸成趨勢。近年「共享經濟」大行其道，「共宅」概念亦愈益受到重視。「共宅」是指由一群人共同租住一個較大單位或房屋，大家不僅共用廚房、客飯廳等資源，還會分擔家務，透過定期「共煮」加強感情，互相照顧幫助，重新建立鄰里關係。

6年前政府提出「青年宿舍計劃」，由政府全數資助非政府機構，利用團體已有土地興建宿舍，為年輕人提供遠低於巿值租金的百多呎宿舍式單位，最多租住5年，照顧青年住屋需要，同時讓他們有機會儲蓄。整幢青年宿舍有不少共享空間和共用設施，性質跟「共宅」概念有相通之處，問題是政府落實計劃太慢，6個青年宿舍項目，第一個最快明年底才落成，另有4個項目落成日期僅為「待定」，令人質疑當局無心經營，反而有私人財團看好市場潛力，兩年前開始收購唐樓並翻新成青年宿舍出租。本港樓價高企，租樓艱難，年輕人無法應付高昂租金，遑論儲錢買樓，「共宅」理論上可以成為另一種選擇，然而如果政府不好好規管引導，「共宅」很容易異化，變成牟取暴利的幌子。

「共享經濟」的核心是善用「閒置資源」，集團式「假共宅真劏房」顯然沾不上邊。誠然，就像納米樓一樣，「假共宅真劏房」的出現，不過是本港樓市嚴重扭曲的產物，「港漂」和初出茅廬青年對廉價租屋需求殷切，自然有人想方設法滿足市場，趁機牟利，政府的角色應當是採取合理規範和引導，避免出現不健康現象，一如不應任由納米樓「愈建愈細」。