Keywords:Lived Morphology, Social Futures, Urban Models, Monocentric vs Polycentric, Spatial Planning
How and in what manner has the social been instrumental in formulating planning policies, and does Hong Kong ascribe to any social concept that facilitates its current spatial planning framework? The legacy of the social in planning originally came to fruition within the Chicago School of Social Sciences during the early 1920s. Since then, the understanding of the social and how planning responds to the social has been wide and varied. This paper examines the social’s application in spatial notions in addition to its context within Hong Kong. At its core this argument outlines the consequences of a social notion within planning and the spatial modes of recourse. Issues of scaling are brought into question when addressing planning as well as economic focus, in both the local as well as regional governance levels, which further emphasises the dynamic proxies of social and spatial factors for territorial planning. Having neither of these, the argument then highlights the realities of economic asymmetries in the disempowerment of a local populous through land speculation and housing shortages.