The Northern Metropolis (NM) is not merely a land development initiative — it is Hong Kong’s most ambitious urban transformation project in decades. Envisioned as a new economic engine, the NM is expected to reshape the city’s spatial layout, drive industrial upgrading, enhance quality of life, and deepen integration with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. If executed well, it could position Hong Kong as a co-leader in building a world-class economic cluster.
Spanning 312 square kilometers across the North District and Yuen Long, and conceptually extending to the “one river, two bays” — the Shenzhen River, Shenzhen Bay and parts of Mirs Bay — the NM is unprecedented in scale and complexity. It is not merely a land supply exercise, but a multidimensional system project that demands a new planning philosophy.
Unlike conventional new town developments, the NM involves more than zoning and infrastructure. It touches on industrial policy, cross-boundary coordination, ecological conservation, and community building. From site selection and investment attraction to governance and financing, the complexity of this undertaking requires a planning and execution model that is both holistic and adaptive.
The current planning regime — fragmented, procedural, and often siloed — is ill-equipped to handle a project of this magnitude. What’s needed is a paradigm shift: a move away from rigid, top-down processes toward a more agile, responsive, and market-informed approach. In short, Hong Kong must embrace “smart planning”.
Bottlenecks threatening progress
A closer examination reveals 10 major hurdles that, if left unaddressed, could stall progress and undermine the region’s potential.
First, land formation delays slow development and inflate costs. The process from site identification to land readiness can take up to 17 years, bogged down by land resumption, compensation disputes, and bureaucratic inertia.
Second, infrastructure lag hampers synchronized development and weakens investor confidence: Major transport projects — including the Northern Link, Route 11, and the Northeast New Territories Line — are not expected to be completed until 2033-39.
Third, investment attraction challenges are real. The Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau has yet to play a proactive role. For example, the San Tin Technopole lacks direct rail access, deterring anchor tenants and undermining its appeal. High rents and a lack of customized facilities further complicate the picture.
Fourth, high land premiums and low return expectations make developers wary. Compared to Shenzhen, where housing costs are lower and infrastructure more advanced, Hong Kong struggles to compete. Developers face high risk with limited upside.
Fifth, the hype cycle for emerging industries is short. Delays in land readiness risk missing strategic opportunities and eroding investor interest. Many of the proposed economic zones sit on private land, making land assembly and preparation even more difficult.
Sixth, cumbersome approvals take time. Despite streamlining efforts, interdepartmental coordination remains weak. The silo effect continues to slow down project execution. Even with over 100 simplification measures, approval times remain lengthy and unpredictable.
Seventh, weak strategic coordination needs to be addressed. The current Northern Metropolis Coordination Office focuses on administrative procedures, lacking the strategic clout to align planning, investment, and operations. Without a strong coordinating body, efforts remain fragmented.
If Hong Kong succeeds in this balancing act, the NM can become more than a land supply solution. It can be a new engine for economic transformation, a platform for social renewal, and a bridge for regional integration
Eighth, rigid planning mechanisms hinder progress. Zoning remains fragmented, with little flexibility for functional reconfiguration. Planning amendments are slow and bureaucratic, making it difficult to respond to changing market needs or integrate new technologies.
Ninth, low initial returns discourage investment. Industrial parks require heavy upfront investment. Without incentives, early-stage operations may struggle to justify costs. Globally, successful innovation hubs often rely on generous subsidies and policy support — Hong Kong must follow suit.
Tenth, financing difficulties. While bond issuance is an option, excessive borrowing could affect Hong Kong’s credit rating. Public-private partnership models remain underdeveloped, and central State-owned enterprises have yet to commit capital at scale.
These challenges are not isolated — they are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Without a fundamental rethink, the NM risks becoming a slow-moving behemoth, unable to deliver on its promise of economic transformation and regional synergy.
Smart planning: A strategic path forward
To break the impasse, Hong Kong must adopt a “smart planning” strategy — one that is agile, market-informed, and execution-driven. This involves three key layers:
Macro spatial reconfiguration. Move beyond fragmented zoning. Reimagine the NM through the lens of industry, employment, housing, and ecology. Planning must be guided by strategic objectives, not just administrative boundaries. Coordination across districts and sectors is essential in restructuring the masterplan of the entire metropolis.
Innovation-education integration. Consolidate scattered tech parks and university campuses into a cohesive innovation cluster. This would foster synergy between research and enterprise, attract talent, and create a vibrant ecosystem for startups and established firms alike.
Cross-boundary synergy zones. Establish a “Twin-City Special Zone” along the Shenzhen River, from the Lok Ma Chau Loop to Lo Wu and Heung Yuen Wai. Leverage the concept of “dual headquarters” and “dual enclaves” to maximize institutional advantages. This zone would primarily utilize government-owned land within the closed frontier areas, enabling immediate planning and development.
Proximity to border crossings ensures transport connectivity. The model would adopt a “three-track” approach — simultaneous planning, investment solicitation, and approvals —allowing real-time feedback from industry to shape land use. This would ensure that planning is responsive to market needs and capable of attracting anchor tenants.
A dedicated Northern Metropolis Authority should be empowered to draft Outline Development Plans, set capacity limits based on infrastructure and environmental thresholds, and implement flexible zoning under “Other Specified Uses (Mixed Use)”. Once approved by the Town Planning Board, future adjustments could be pre-cleared under defined principles, streamlining the iterative nature of urban development.
This approach would also allow for more dynamic land use arrangements, enabling the government to respond quickly to shifts in industry demand, demographic trends, and environmental considerations. It would also reduce the risk of overbuilding or underutilization, which has plagued past development efforts.
The Elephant and the Monkey: a dual-speed strategy
In the realm of urban development, metaphors often reveal more than metrics. Traditional land planning resembles the elephant — steady, deliberate, and institutionally grounded. In contrast, agile strategic planning is more like the monkey — quick, adaptive, and opportunistic. Hong Kong’s NM must learn to orchestrate both: the elephant’s stability and the monkey’s agility. Only then can we break through bureaucratic inertia and accelerate progress.
The NM is not merely a spatial planning challenge. It is a comprehensive test of institutional design, policy coordination, and executional capacity. To meet its multifaceted mission, we must go beyond zoning maps and infrastructure blueprints. Reform must begin at the top — with visionary design, fiscal innovation, industry alignment, and community-building at its core.
This is not a call to abandon order for improvisation. Rather, it is a plea to embrace duality: to retain the procedural rigor of traditional governance while injecting the nimbleness required to respond to shifting economic and social realities. The elephant and the monkey must not compete — they must collaborate.
If Hong Kong succeeds in this balancing act, the NM can become more than a land supply solution. It can be a new engine for economic transformation, a platform for social renewal, and a bridge for regional integration. But this requires a new planning language — one that listens to the elephant’s footsteps and dances to the monkey’s rhythm.
The author is a member of the Chief Executive’s Policy Unit Expert Group and chairman of Doctoral Exchange, a Hong Kong-based think tank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.