# What is driving Shanghai and other Asian cities to build so many skyscrapers?



## OfficeSpace2k6 (Sep 13, 2006)

Lack of land? 
High cost of land?
Low cost of labor and materials to build skyscrapers?
Demand for office space?
Foreign investment?


Why does say San Francisco, LA or Dallas not have a fraction of the construction?


----------



## BearCave (Feb 2, 2007)

High density population.


----------



## Juan Pilgrim (Apr 3, 2008)

There is a demand for space! 
...and with very limited space in the horizon there is no way but upwards!


... and they have the money to burn too!




:horse:


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

All of the above factors & more. 

What more?

Rampant real estate speculation & overbuilding. 

Its no different from we've seen in the US. 

During the last East Asian collapse in the late 90s, 
the development bubble burst big time, 
Hong Kong, Bangkok, Jakarta were very hard hit. 

Doing be surprised at all when the bubble bursts again, its just a matter of time.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

Well, probably for a number of reasons. But the first important thing to note is that skyscraper construction largely stopped in the three cities you mentioned in the 1980s. I mean, when is the last time LA had a real new skyscraper? It hasn't had one.

The biggest reason so many skyscrapers are being built in Asia right now is the red hot economy. Regional developers have money, business have money, foreign companies are investing money in the region, and western developers are looking for places to expand their business. In Shanghai and Hong Kong many of the new skyscrapers have been built solely on foreign cash. In many cases it's a company building a new headquarters for the region, or companies buying smaller amounts of space in larger projects. Part of the reason foreign companies are going to Asia in the first place is they can get more bang for their buck. Building a skyscraper costs a lot less right now in many Asian cities then it does it North America. The labor, materials, and land costs are a lot less. Businesses want to build something impressive and make their mark on the region, so they build a skyscraper.

Part of the other reason is because building skyscrapers is a fad right now in Asia. It's the "in" thing. Cities are competing with each other for stature, particularly in China and South Korea. All of them want the businesses and investment, that's why were seeing supertall towers going up in places you've probably never heard of. Every city wants to put itself on the map, and get in on the action. In some cases there is a need for office space, that is true. Like in Shanghai. And in China some cities are planning for future growth in the Chinese economy. Banks and investors are making investments for the future. It's cheap to build skyscrapers right now, so why not build them? Everyone is doing it, so why not do it too?

One of the most interesting things, I think, is that westerners are designing or working on a good majority of these projects. I don't believe that is just because Asians wanted the expert builders in the world. They want their cities to look American. And usually when the world thinks of America they think of large cities with lots of skyscrapers. And they know that the more familiar westerners are with their cities, the more likely they are to invest in them. 

Now in Asia and in the Middle East some of the huge developments going up are planned out, where the larger skyscrapers are being paid for by smaller developments near by. And they can do that because they are trying to put huge rural populations into cities for the first time. They need places for people to live, and by building skyscrapers in the developments it ensures that their development will be successful and attractive to people and to businesses. Those kinds of developments will probably never happen here in the United States. Our population is already modernized, and it grows modestly. We slowly accommodate over time to the growing population. In Asia many people have never lived in a city before.

Going forward, I would say it’s corporate and private investment that will be fueling any new skyscrapers in the United States. It’s not like the money isn’t there to build skyscrapers here, because there are many companies that have the potential to do so. Like Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Companies that make billions of dollars every year, a supertall tower would be a drop in the bucket for them. In fact in New York that has happened with the banks. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America recently built new headquarters. BUT you have to realize we don’t have a land problem here, Microsoft and Google can build their expensive sprawling campuses no problem. And as far as future expansion and development goes for those companies, the sprawling campuses make a lot more sense than the supertall skyscraper does. You know, Comcast recently built their new headquarters in Philadelphia, and I visited there a few weeks ago. It’s an absolutely beautiful building and the tallest in Philadelphia at 300m, but it’s already too small for Comcast.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

HK has a high economy, dense population and lack of land. Skyscrapers is a must.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

huge population lives in city centers.chinese city has small sprawl, but huge city center(maybe called downtown eara in ENGLisH).
shanghai has 10 million, medium sized chinese city has 1.5-3 million ,while US cities city center has less population,1.5million is a huge city for USA(it is said that LA only has 1.5million in city center),huger population lives in surburb.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> huge population lives in city centers.chinese city has small sprawl, but huge city center(maybe called downtown eara in ENGLisH).
> shanghai has 10 million, medium sized chinese city has 1.5-3 million ,while US cities city center has less population,1.5million is a huge city for USA(it is said that LA only has 1.5million in city center),huger population lives in surburb.


But that deals with land, I don't think this is so much about population. New York has 10 million people and has more skyscrapers than Shanghai.


----------



## OshHisham (Nov 14, 2005)

OfficeSpace2k6 said:


> Lack of land?
> High cost of land?
> Low cost of labor and materials to build skyscrapers?
> Demand for office space?
> ...


for small and high density city like HK and Singapore, skyscraper is the only option. land price become high as land ratio become smaller and and developer/building owner need to maximise profit. 

HK, Singapore, Tokyo and Shanghai also regarded as business hubs for asia and many MNC has their office there. so, they need space for that....vertically....a lot!

other cities like Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Jakarta eventho has a lot of land yet to be developed, the city council or authority already planned a special site or pointed certain area in the middle of the city to be a business hub for those respected cities. this is to ensure better connection and amenities for those business owners.

same thing happen to some european cities....Canary Wharf in London and also Frankfurt....a special site as business hub.

while Dubai, Doha and other MidEast i still don't understand the need for them to build mega and insanely super tall highrise....other than national pride. no other reasons.

low cost construction materials? no such thing!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Onn said:


> But that deals with land, I don't think this is so much about population. New York has 10 million people and has more skyscrapers than Shanghai.


now,most chinese love urban life, the land price higher close to city centers.so population squezzed into city center. so a lot of skyscrapers demanded.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

OshHisham said:


> low cost construction materials? no such thing!


No such thing as cheap steel?


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> now,most chinese love urban life, the land price higher close to city centers.so population squezzed into city center. so a lot of skyscrapers demanded.


Yes, I know that. But that does not necessarily mean more skyscrapers. New York has the same population as Shanghai, but has more skyscrapers. Shanghai has a lot more land than New York City does.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Onn said:


> Yes, I know that. But that does not necessarily mean more skyscrapers. New York has the same population as Shanghai, but has more skyscrapers. Shanghai has a lot more land than New York City does.


Shanghai has more hi-rises than NYC.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

null said:


> Shanghai has more hi-rises than NYC.


Not skyscrapers. What do you define as "high-rise"? 150 meters?


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

In east Asia is largely due to demand and land constraints that dense increasingly growing and wealthy cities require. In west Asia/Gulf the reasons why are more a mystery on the question of how much is top down ambition or demand driven.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

Who cares? It´s amazing!!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Onn said:


> Yes, I know that. But that does not necessarily mean more skyscrapers. New York has the same population as Shanghai, but has more skyscrapers. Shanghai has a lot more land than New York City does.


you explain your question by yourslef
DOWN TOWN population:
NYC>CHICAGO>la
SKYSCRAPERS:
NYC>CHICAGO>LA


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> you explain your question by yourslef
> DOWN TOWN population:
> NYC>CHICAGO>la
> SKYSCRAPERS:
> NYC>CHICAGO>LA


Yes, but...

POPULATION:
New York = Shanghai
LAND:
New York < Shanghai
SKYSCRAPERS:
New York > Shanghai

It's about land, not population. Yes, I already explained myself. You said higher population lead to more skyscrapers, but that's not always true. Depends on the land.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

What standard are you using to contrast the area of NYC and Shanghi? Similar to population the area size of the metro is more important then what lays within the official city limits. Given that it is a rather far bet then the NYC is much more sprawled and decentralized then the Shanghi metro.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Onn said:


> Yes, but...
> 
> POPULATION:
> New York = Shanghai
> ...


if you define"skyscraper" 200m+, that's another story. why NYC has more 200m+ than shanghai? that's culture.TOKYO has more population, but has less 200m+,that's culture.


----------



## OshHisham (Nov 14, 2005)

first, not all skyscrapers in china, south east asia are 'luxury'. in fact, only very few percent are luxury

if you use the *'property bubble' caused by property speculation by speculators*, as the reason on why those cities has so much skyscrapers, then you can take Dubai as the best example of having that bubble as most of the projects are luxury-type.

while in China, you have to look at the type of skyscrapers they being build. if most of it are medium to low cost apartments, then you can't use that 'property bubble' as the explanation.

nonetheless, if the majority of the skyscrapers are medium to low cost type, then population is the possible reason.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Onn said:


> ASIA, NOT CHINA IN GENERAL! That's what thread is about, stop trying to load all this Chinese crap on us. As much as you wish it was, everything isn't about China on this forum.


But it seems like you obviously have a problem with China taking up a lot of space on these forums. :lol:


Apart from high-end office complexes and supertalls, the reason for the vast skyscraper oceans in Chinese cities is population, and population density.


----------



## OshHisham (Nov 14, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> Yep actually Shanghai's authorities have the same ideas, in 2003 they even declared a moratorium on highrise buildings
> as the city started sinking, stopping all development as they drew up new stipulations. *Nowadays the country has strict
> liveability laws, pretty ruthless too, where barely 10 year old developments are bulldozed to make way for parks.*
> X amount of people need to live within x vicinity of x amount of green space, and all new housing estates need to be mixed income.
> ...


first they let the developers to mess up the city, then they stop them using force? that's not just 'pretty ruthless' but indeed ruthless.

btw, i dont like the idea of 'mixed income housing estate'. doesn't mean i support discrimination, but low income housing occupants will couse trouble afterward...

btw, i like how London came out with the 'green belt' idea....the idea came when london was having the same situation like shanghai is having today...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Onn said:


> Thank you! Someone with some sense at what I was getting at. Skyscrapers have little to do with population. It’s not like
> just because a city has a large population IT MUST build skyscrapers. Not at all, check Tokyo.


?? Tokyo has a huge amount of tall buildings, in terms of their number of highrises it ranks 4th, and by skyscrapers over 200m 5th, one behind Chicago,
even despite being in the worlds most seismically active zone, with strict height restrictions. Like mentioned before in terms of average floorspace
Tokyo has the biggest buildings in the world - if it weren't for the earthquakes it would probably be the world leader in terms of skyscrapers in every
category.

SCROLL>>


















You can't just keep completely ignoring the highrises btw, a city building several 150m buildings, but only one 200m building is still building up, and heavily. 
It comes across as pedantic otherwise, and slanted in order to make one's own city look on top (a delineation based not on *supertall* buildings over
300m, not on *highrise* buildings over 100m, not on *skyscraper* buildings over 150m, but only specifically on *tall-skyscraper* buildings over
200m, whilst ignoring the higher amounts in all other categories).

Look at Sao Paulo, not a single skyscraper, but tens of thousands of highrises -you can't portray this as a city that isn't heavily vertical:





















Shanghai is similar to this, but has its skyscrapers over 150-200m too. Do you seriously think this kind of mass building, recently done, has no
correlation with its population explosion, recently started?











...In short the Asian model is not one based on sprawl, even in rich cities like Tokyo. Its based on highrise cores and extensive highrise-midrise
'suburbs'. Its more about efficiency, infrastructure and economy rather than individual plots, car driving and suburban culture.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Onn said:


> ASIA, NOT CHINA IN GENERAL! That's what thread is about, stop trying to load all this Chinese crap on us. As much as you wish it was, everything isn't about China on this forum.


Umm, yes it is, because almost all Asian cities (outside of the Middle East) building skyscrapers nowadays are in China, and as much as you want to believe that isn't the case, it's irrefutable. I would bet that more than 3/4 of the Asian (excluding the Middle East) buildings u/c tracked on this forum are in China, so yes, this discussion will obviously be predominantly focused on China's construction boom.


----------



## OfficeSpace2k6 (Sep 13, 2006)

I'm not saying that it isn't driven by population, but that doesn't mean there isn't a buble going on. It happened in the US both in the 1980s then again in the 2000s and in Japan in the 80s so its not illogical that it could be happening in China. I heard 20% of all the space Beijing has built is vacant. Also when you see a country with a per capita income of $3,000 building billion dollar skyscrapers you have to pause and say hmm.. does that make sense? Kind of like people should have paused when track homes in California were selling for $500k.


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

New York, Hong Kong, and Shanghai build high rises for density and tall iconic skyscrapers for ego. Sao Paulo builds high rises for density but lacks the ego buildings. Chicago and Dubai are surrounded by vast space so they build them mainly for ego. Skyscrapers are Chicago's great architectural invention, and they're built to supply the city with both its office and residential space requirements. Skyscrapers were also how the ruling sheikhs decided to place Dubai on the world architectural map.

As for the most vertical city, well Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Sao Paulo are all ahead of New York in total numbers of high-rises. And even if Shanghai's total still falls short, Hong Kong is already some way ahead of New York by 200m+ if its multiple residential buildings are counted separately. However the Chinese cities are trying to catch a fast moving target. New York has added a huge quantity of 150m+ and 200m+ buildings in the last decade. In terms of properly separate skyscrapers it has certainly built more than Hong Kong in that time period, and probably just as many as Shanghai. I think some people really underestimate just how much has been constructed in New York over the last decade. It easily outstrips the '30s or '70s for sheer numbers, cumulative height, and total volume. The last decade has seen the biggest construction boom in New York's history.


----------



## OfficeSpace2k6 (Sep 13, 2006)

Population density of cities:

New York 27,440/sq mi 469 square miles 
Sao Paulo 20,139.7/sq mi
Hong Kong 16,452/sq mi
Shanghai 6,950.5/sq mi 2,717 sq miles

Density doesn't explain Shanghai building 4,000 skyscrapers.

Where I used to live on the Upper East Side Population density: 88364 people per square mile


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

^^That's because the Shanghai figure includes thousands of square miles of farmland that is part of Shanghai Municipality, but is not the actual city :cheers:









The city covers the colored districts, and a little bit to the right of the river, where Lujiazui is.

Also, there is a huge rural-to-urban migration, and ~30 fl highrises are the cheapest and most efficient way to house the massively growing urban population, there may be some bubble with luxury residentials, but demand will never cease for cheap residentials in decades.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

OfficeSpace2k6 said:


> Also when you see a country with a per capita income of $3,000 building billion dollar skyscrapers you have to pause and say hmm.. does that make sense? Kind of like people should have paused when track homes in California were selling for $500k.


It makes sense, since income disparity is very large in China. Per capita income is low for the entire country since rural areas also factor into the calculation. You would not be able to survive with the per capita income in cities like Shenzhen, Beijing and Shanghai. The contrast between cities and rural areas is enormous.



OfficeSpace2k6 said:


> Population density of cities:
> 
> New York 27,440/sq mi 469 square miles
> Sao Paulo 20,139.7/sq mi
> ...


Hong Kong is more than 80% green space. The rest of the area is jammed with highrise buildings and 7 million people. Compare the Upper East Side's density of 34,117 people per square kilometer with Hong Kong's densest districts. 









source: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Districts_of_Hong_Kong


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Xusein said:


> I LOVE this photo. Urban immensity... :cheers:


agreed. I saw this picture on SSP last night and it blew me away. The picture doesn't even look real!


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Much of Shanghai municipality is CSA, including alot of open land. The 'centre' is really the urban city.

For the city proper:

"Shanghai 's population has increased over seven million since 1950. The population density of the city centre is 35,000 per sq. kilometer (90,650 per sq. mile). In the central commercial heart of Shanghai the population density is 200,000 per sq. kilometer (518,000 per sq. mile). Thus, 70% of industries and 50% of its population are squeezed into just 2% of the city's area."

http://www.patana.ac.th/Events/Shanghai/megacity.asp

And the population stats for central Shanghai from 1998 - this was even before the highrises. This is about 10 sq. miles bigger
than Manhattan, which has a density of 71,000 per sq. mile.

Density by district, per sq. mile Central Shanghai:

Huangpu 142,343

Nanshi 147,007

Luwan 118,328

Jingan 126,905

Hongkou 88,297

Zhabei 60,806

(Total Land area 31.2 sq miles)

If you cut up the central area to the same size as Manhattan (21 sq. miles),
the population density would be about 125,000 per sq. mile. That's about 76% more crowded - hence why the skyscrapers and highrises.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

^^
Population is not the ONLY reason...


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

OfficeSpace2k6 said:


> Population density of cities:
> 
> New York 27,440/sq mi 469 square miles
> Sao Paulo 20,139.7/sq mi
> ...


Ehh, at least try to read up on the facts before making headless statements like this. Shanghai and Hong Kong are far more dense than New York is, in every way possible. Hell, New York probably has the largest urban agglomeration on the planet, larger than that of Tokyo and Los Angeles. Shanghai places more people in an urban area far smaller than that of New York's.


----------



## OfficeSpace2k6 (Sep 13, 2006)

staff said:


> Ehh, at least try to read up on the facts before making headless statements like this. Shanghai and Hong Kong are far more dense than New York is, in every way possible. Hell, New York probably has the largest urban agglomeration on the planet, larger than that of Tokyo and Los Angeles. Shanghai places more people in an urban area far smaller than that of New York's.


What are you talking about? Mahattan has a population density of 70,595/sq MI. If your argument is that this is why theres so many skyscrapers then you need to explain why most ultra dense cities like Mumbai don't have a fraction of the ones that China has.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I wish US cities invested more in mass transit and urbanity in general(not necessary East Asian urbanity) instead of auto centric sprawl.


----------



## whizz_pat (Jul 30, 2008)

I wish New Zealand cities invested more in mass transit and urbanity in general(not necessary East Asian urbanity) instead of auto centric sprawl.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Mumbai is definitely heading up btw, it couldn't build so many highrises before because as a democracy the poor who lived on the land own it. Much of the density of the past was provided by shantytowns, now they are slowly being replaced with highrises:

shantytowns:


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Onn said:


> ^^
> Population is not the ONLY reason...


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=40437396&postcount=57


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> Umm, yes it is, because almost all Asian cities (outside of the Middle East) building skyscrapers nowadays are in China, and as much as you want to believe that isn't the case, it's irrefutable. I would bet that more than 3/4 of the Asian (excluding the Middle East) buildings u/c tracked on this forum are in China, so yes, this discussion will obviously be predominantly focused on China's construction boom.


Ummm Dubai is in ASIA as well. So are many other countries, not just China. South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines. You have to look at the entire picture, not just China. If all that is happening in China than it would an exception to your population argument. If it’s happening in China, it has to be happening in countries near by as well, because they have large populations and expanding cities also (using your logic). The building of skyscrapers on a larger scale is not happening in India, and their cities are expanding just the same. Someone not from China is obviously not going to focus on solely China. Dubai and some other Middle Eastern countries are having construction booms too. And certainly not all of them have anything to do with population.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

India is just starting its skyscraper boom, in time with its new urban population boom (those Mumbai skylines posted are barely a year old). It doesnt have as much powers to rehouse people into highrises as China though, being a democracy, but the highrises are definitely going up on a vast scale.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/story...sation+in+India+faster+than+rest+of+the+world

check out the new slew of projects here:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=450


SE Asia is growing and urbanising just as quickly as China is .Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are urbanising rapidly (alongside booming in population), hence why they are building high also. There is definitely a correlation.

Vietnam - population to urbanise from 25% to 45% within a decade, at the same time the population growing from 86 million to 100 million.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...rbanization+vietnam&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

THailand is not urbanising on the same scale, already having been through its urbanisation boom into Bangkok, whereby near 20% of the population moved to the one city (12 million) during the 1990s, whilst the next biggest city is only 230,000. Unsurprisingly enough Bangkok holds all the skyscrapers, most of them built in the 1990s. As the population urbanising has fallen so has the number of highrises going up.

Indonesia's urbanisation for 238 million population, from 48% urban today to nearer 60% in the next 5 years:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=ID

Once again Malaysia's urban boom was in the 1990s, like Thailand's whereby it grew from 49% at the start of the decade to 61% at the end. Similarly much of Malaysia's skyscrapers and highrises sprouted in that time, but at the same time increasing economy has carried on the construction to today, for businesses though rather than residentials

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=MY


The Philippines will see its urban population jump from 45 million in 2000 to 82 million by 2020. Highrises have been booming since then.

Page 4: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=MY


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

The developed area of Hong Kong (not including the forested mountains) is probably by far the most dense city of 1+ million people in the world. The whole developed land area of the Hong Kong territory is roughly as dense as Manhattan itself, if I am not mistaken from reading somewhere.. 

Where is the official number of Shangai buildings??? I tried looking for it but couldn't find it.


----------



## jacks (Aug 4, 2005)

It's hard to find out in English...

In 2003 the China daily stated that Shanghai had 4916 buildings of 18 or more floors at the end of 2002, and another 2000 were either planned or under construction. 
The number now is almost certainly in the order of 10,000. 
Shanghai has more high-rise than Hong Kong and a similar number to Sao Paulo, Tokyo and Seoul.

Where you cut off your definition of high rise will give you different results for which city has the most.
Hong Kong's buildings are much the highest on average. If you only count 100m+ HK is miles ahead of anywhere. 
However, if you set the limit to 50m (and that's still pretty tall in Perth!) HK is a long way behind the much bigger cities that all have at least three times it's population.

Here's I pano I took recently (and which I've now spammed all over these forums :lol: ). 
You get a good idea at the shear number of 60-120m residential towers in a city like Shanghai...

Scroll --->>>









By dirtyforker at 2009-10-09


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^thanx!
slightly bigger size:











aerial, the pano above would only take up a third of this pic (which itself leaves out the Pudong half of the city):


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Hmm, definitely more buildings than Toronto and Chicago, but Emporis says that Shanghai has only 982 buildings, which is much lower than the rumored number of 4000-5000.

Emporis reports Singapore to have 4333 buildings, but Shanghai certainly looks to have even more, judging from the pano. It's quite difficult to get a nice, fully-rounded pano from the middle of Singapore (not near downtown) to get a good look at the vast area of 224 square miles.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Yep, Germany based Emporis relies on data volunteered by locals, its not well known in China, but is in the West. 982 buildings for Shanghai is laughable, especially as the Shanghai Urban Planning Council puts it at 4000 as of 2007.

Not only is Shanghai heavily undercounted, but also heavily out of date if any count does get accepted, especially at the rate they build. Also note Emporis doesnt accept foreign language data, as a Spanish forumer, Zorg, who lives out in China found out after attempting to submit many, many buildings. He's quite the expert in his field, but got completely ignored.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Interesting.. thanks for the explanation. The best picture I could find of Singapore that tries to cover all of the buildings in its entirety is:










credit: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=36643982&postcount=178

So, let's say that the area that the pano covers represents the tall buildings of roughly 2/3 of all the buildings listed in Emporis data. 

The 360-degree pano of Shanghai looks even more impressive than that of Singapore, with 4333 listed buildings.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Emporis is a joke for anything else than Western cities. I have lived in Shanghai and I currently live in Singapore, and I would guess that Shanghai has maybe 10x the amount of highrises compared to Singapore. Most of the residential tower blocks in Singapore are basically of "midrise" size by Shanghai standards too. Shanghai has about 5 times the population of Singapore and arguably a larger proportion living in highrise buildings.

In fact, I can pretty confidently say that Shanghai is the city with the most highrises on the planet (with thousands more under construction at any given time). Sao Paolo, Seoul, Beijing etc. are competitors but if you set the cut-off point at maybe 30 stories there's no competition really.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

What we really need is a bird's-eye view of Shanghai, from 4 different angles. Bing.com is trying to compete with Google's street-view by providing birds-eye view all across the US but I'd like to see it on the biggest cities of the world especially.

I mean, we definitely have the technology to use satellites to determine (at least estimate with quite good accuracy) the height of the buildings. Plus we'd be able to count the buildings and the floors.


----------



## skyphire (Jan 2, 2008)

emporis is not a reliable source. it is not updated and there's lots of errors in their figures


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

i guess shanghai has 20000 highrises.there are ocean of 15-30 stories residential highrises in the whole city.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Shera said:


> What we really need is a bird's-eye view of Shanghai, from 4 different angles. Bing.com is trying to compete with Google's street-view by providing birds-eye view all across the US but I'd like to see it on the biggest cities of the world especially.
> 
> I mean, we definitely have the technology to use satellites to determine (at least estimate with quite good accuracy) the height of the buildings. Plus we'd be able to count the buildings and the floors.


even 84th posts in this thread only cover about half(or less than half) of shanghai highrises eara.
east: the huge pudong district(3million population) only showed lujiazui eara,
south :xujiahui stadium not been shown on the pic
westic only extend to changning districts
northic only extend to hongkou districts
and the pic is a little bit of old.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

shanghai authority population
指 标 2000 2007 2008
　 
年末常住人口 1 608.63 1 858.08 1 888.46 
户籍人口 1 309.63 1 358.86 1 371.04 
外来人口 （半年以上人口） 299.00 499.22 517.42 
2008,shanghai has population of 18.88 million,registerated population 13.71million, live in shanghai more than half years population 5.17 million


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

oliver999 said:


> shanghai authority population
> 指 标 2000 2007 2008
> 
> 年末常住人口 1 608.63 1 858.08 1 888.46
> ...


Hmm, interesting, but I cannot read the Chinese font! It comes garbled in Firefox!

Anyway, here's a picture of a gigantic model of Shanghai buildings:



















Credit: owlmanjohnson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/180254078/)


----------



## deepblue01 (Oct 27, 2008)

I guess NYC has boomed, hence many towers for the population they have. Many nations in Asia is starting to boom, therefore many towers will be up in the following years to come. More towers in Asia = more people are having a higher standard of living = more even distribution of wealth= the world is working towards equality. India and PRC and other nations like Malaysia and Singapore are also booming and with the ratio between land and population... more new towers are forseeable.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

I am from the city of mumbai.

From the first post for mumbai.



> Lack of land?


Yes. 



> High cost of land?


yes




> Low cost of labor and materials to build skyscrapers?


partially true, as construction in congested mumbai is not easy




> Demand for office space?


In case of mumbai, residential and office space. But mostly residential



> Foreign investment?


Not mumbai. I believe 100% FDI is not allowed.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Shera said:


> Hmm, interesting, but I cannot read the Chinese font! It comes garbled in Firefox!
> 
> Anyway, here's a picture of a gigantic model of Shanghai buildings:


That's the *Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Hall*. I been there myself and I'll tell you its one of the places in the city where I can spend hours looking the models.

Anyway, The gigantic model is what Shanghai will look like in the future if these developments still continue. Some of the buildings there do not exist.

HK has something similar


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

WANCH said:


> That's the *Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Hall*. I been there myself and I'll tell you its one of the places in the city where I can spend hours looking the models.
> 
> Anyway, The gigantic model is what Shanghai will look like in the future if these developments still continue. Some of the buildings there do not exist.
> 
> HK has something similar


Cool, thanks for the info!! :cheers2: :cheers1: :banana2:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

There's pressure from a burgeoning population that's beginning to enter the middle class for housing. There's pent-up demand from formerly state-run businesses for office space. There's enormous urban rivalry between cities in China for the biggest, the tallest, and the best which is driven by local officials who have borrowed massively to finance their entries in the city wars. And there's the classic nationalism and pride that chinese people enjoy. I think those are the major drivers of the upward explosion in China. In the U.S., mergers, office automation, and the social and cultural preferrences for smaller scale suburban living and working environments have essentially killed the skyscraper. And the huge costs of building them, especially supertalls, in america. mean that that is unlikely to change.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

oliver999 said:


> i guess shanghai has 20000 highrises.there are ocean of 15-30 stories residential highrises in the whole city.



I heard it was over 4,000. Even more than Hong Kong. is there any doubt Shanghai is the greatest high rise city?


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

> According to the city government, there were 4,916 tall buildings (of eight floors or more) in Shanghai by the end of 2002. More than 2,800 were 18 storeys or taller.
> 
> Another 2,000-plus buildings with more than 18 floors are either under construction or in the planning stage.


Source: http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/shanghai/node17256/node18151/userobject22ai10218.html

This is the only official statement made by the Chinese Government. It says that there were 4,916 buildings of 8 floors or more. I would take away at least 500-1000 to make it 12 floors or more. However, the amazing thing here is that more than 2,800 were 18 floors or taller. 

For comparison purposes, on Emporis.com, there is a list for Hong Kong with 7,651 buildings that are accounted-for, that have at least 12 floors. 

Ok, let's say that all of the 2000 planned buildings have been constructed between 2003 and now (which is only a guess, given that it generally takes 5-10 years for all of the plans to actually come into fruition without being scrapped as a result of the up-and-down's of economy). That would make 4,800+ buildings that are 18 floors or taller.

I looked up the data of Hong Kong on Emporis.com and looked up all of the buildings. Although Emporis says that HK has 7,651 buildings that are 12+ floors, the list ended at 4880 buildings with an error that did not allow me to look up the rest of the buildings from 4880 to 7651. What I did manage to gather, though, is that roughly 4800 buildings in Hong Kong have at least 23 floors! Yep, that's right, *4800 buildings that are >= 23 stories tall. *

Versus China's alleged claim of 2800 buildings of >= *18 floors* and 2000+ under construction.


----------



## Kenwen (May 1, 2005)

Well, both Shanghai and HK are covered by skyscrapers as far as eye can see, but hk is tiny compare to Shanghai, is a easy questions, which city has more high rise.


----------



## Uaarkson (Feb 11, 2009)

The U.S. would probably be rivaling China's rate of skyscraper construction if the real estate market hadn't imploded. Two years ago, any company on the fortune 500 could have built a supertall headquarters. China has the need, we have the money.

With oil becoming more scarce, mass-transit and high-density developments (read: "highrises") will become more popular. I have a feeling the comeback of the American city is on its way.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Kenwen said:


> Well, both Shanghai and HK are covered by skyscrapers as far as eye can see, but hk is tiny compare to Shanghai, is a easy questions, which city has more high rise.


True, but the HK territory covers a large area. The developed area of the whole HK district has roughly the same population density as Manhattan itself. 

To me, the aerial photos of Shanghai make it seem like it would be like Manhattan spread out over a much larger area. Not even downtown Shanghai is anywhere nearly as dense as Midtown Manhattan, the largest concentration of 500+ footers in the world, per square mile. Also, the skyscrapers in Shanghai are relatively thinner than those of New York or Tokyo. Residential skyscrapers like those in HK are usually much thinner than commercial skyscrapers. 

I am not saying that Shanghai is smaller than HK. Shanghai does have roughly 3x the population, but many do still live in low-rises, as seen from Google Earth.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^half of Shanghai's population lives in 1/10 the area, that is larger and denser than HK or NYc's cores.

These are the stats for the central city districts, that make up an area one and a half times the size of Manhattan, and far denser *(Manhattan is 71,201 per sq. mile):*

*Shanghai core density per sq. mile (overall area 31.2 sq. miles):

Huangpu 119,898 
Nanshi 147,072 
Luwan 106,215 
Jing'an 103,804 
Zhabei 70,947 
Hongkou 94,941 * 


btw HK Island+ Kowloon (eg the built up area rather than the expanses of open countryside that makes up Hong Kong) is *91,500 per sq. mile.* That's alot higher too.


.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Nb also note population density doesnt always need highrises, for example central Paris is between 53,000 - 103,000 per sq. mile (and in 1860 was 220,000).

Similarly Shanghai's density in 1998, before any of the highrises was higher.

Today's figures compared:

Huangpu 119,898 (fall from 142,343 )
Nanshi 147,072 (rise from 147,007 )	
Luwan 106215 (fall from 118,328 ) 
Jing'an 103804 (fall from 126,905 )	
Zhabei 70947 (rise from 60,806 )	
Hongkou 94941 (rise from 88,267)

Manila is also said to be the world's densest depending on the catchment area size:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...&gl=uk&sig=AFQjCNHKrRFyDbsEEU0Jv3kU_2hCMt822w



.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Uaarkson said:


> The U.S. would probably be rivaling China's rate of skyscraper construction if the real estate market hadn't imploded. Two years ago, any company on the fortune 500 could have built a supertall headquarters. China has the need, we have the money.
> 
> With oil becoming more scarce, mass-transit and high-density developments (read: "highrises") will become more popular. I have a feeling the comeback of the American city is on its way.


I've been thinking the same. Chicago has recently built plenty of skyscrapers during the 2000's, and now NYC is finally starting to build high-rises outside of Times Square. According to Emporis data, 156 high-rises are now under construction in NYC, compared to only 37 in Chicago. For the past decade, Chicago had like 200 new high-rises, compared to a few (under 100) in NYC. I'm a bit surprised because NYC is already a very dense place and the only way they could keep on building is if they demolish some old buildings. Manhattan just needs a new tunnel/bridge and a subway system that extends into NJ. 

I can see Shanghai surpassing HK within 10 years, if Shanghai keeps it up. However, in the recent pictures, it's rather hard to find building cranes or new buildings. In Dubai or Panama City, building cranes on new buildings are seen everywhere. Dubai has 333 high-rises under construction, and Panama City has 206 under construction, which is almost exactly as many as the number of high-rises that already exist in Panama City! At that rate, Panama City is doubling within a few years. 

The city with the greatest number of "registered" under-construction high-rises (according to Emporis data) is Sao Paulo, with 435 under construction, but that is not so many compared to 5650 that are already completed. Next is Santiago, with 359 under construction, compared to 1092 existing ones (a much bigger ratio). Singapore also seems to be growing nicely, with more room to spare than HK, with 210 U/C. HK has only 112 U/C, which is worse than NYC's right now. 

I'm guessing that HK is either running out of room or becoming quite saturated with living space compared to its growing population. This is quite unlike the boom of the past couple decades, whereas the construction has finally slowed down at last. 

Mumbai (Bombay) seems to be poised for hyper construction, with 270 now U/C, compared to 958 that already exist. I would expect it to grow even faster at an ever-increasing rate for the next 15-20 years at least, given the huge population of Mumbai and India overall. 

Delhi does not seem to have any at all, much, and is probably the largest city in metro (18.6 million people) without a substantial number of skyscrapers. Delhi is also one of the fastest growing mega-cities in the world, if not the absolute fastest..


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

the spliff fairy said:


> ^half of Shanghai's population lives in 1/10 the area, that is larger and denser than HK or NYc's cores.
> 
> These are the stats for the central city districts, that make up an area one and a half times the size of Manhattan, and far denser *(Manhattan is 71,201 per sq. mile):*
> 
> ...





the spliff fairy said:


> Nb also note population density doesnt always need highrises, for example central Paris is between 53,000 - 103,000 per sq. mile (and in 1860 was 220,000).
> 
> Similarly Shanghai's density in 1998, before any of the highrises was higher.
> 
> ...


35% of Shanghai lives in Puxi, the concentrated area of Shanghai. It's the area that is in the popular aerial photographs that cover the skyscrapers. However, Pudong contains the new downtown and also covers a lot of farmland area. Baoshan also covers a number of high-rises, but it is largely an industrial area.

Nanshi no longer existed after the Chinese got rid of it in 2000 census. This tiny, old town district was merged into Huangpu. 

Central Paris is purely consisted of 8-floor residential buildings. It's everywhere all over the inner city of Paris. I've been there and other than a few attractions and businesses there, it's mainly a residential area. 

I was talking mainly about the density of high-rises, but I guess you are right that central Shanghai is rather dense population-wise. Lots of high-rises are residential and the old districts are still filled with dense low-rise residential buildings. Denser than the houses of Brooklyn, I would definitely say. If you look at all of the townhouses around Prospect Park in Brooklyn, it gives a rough idea of 30,000 people per square mile from only 2-3 floor buildings. But the Americans are known to occupy more residential space than most others anyways. 

There are several other cities than just Manila whose density is sky-high with 1 or 2 floor buildings (esp. slums). Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Dhaka, Lahore, Karachi, Cairo, Lagos, Jakarta, etc.. It's nearly impossible for the government to count the people in the entire slums of a megacity for census purposes. For Europe, Athens and Barcelona look denser than Paris, with 4-6 story buildings that are more tightly packed. 

Upper West and Lower West sides of Manhattan far exceed 100,000 people per square mile, and are in the same neighborhood as the central districts of Shanghai. Midtown Manhattan goes from a few thousand up to 400,000 people per square mile (over a million total) when considering actual daytime population. Downtown Manhattan actually swells up to over 400,000 per sq. mile, from even fewer during night.

Anyways, it is true that Shanghai, like with many many other mega-cities in the world, has a much larger area that is close to the *residential* density of Manhattan. I'm actually wondering how many cities there are out there that has a larger land area of 70,000 per square mile than Manhattan (23 square miles). Inner Paris has 33.6 square miles with a density of 65,000 per sq.mi (probably 28-30 sq.mi. with 70000+/sq.mi).

I'd also say that the entire Hong Kong territory, minus the forested areas, has an overall density that is nearly equal to Manhattan. Let's say that 1/4 of the 400 sq. miles of Hong Kong is developed area, and that it contains 99% of the population. That would give 100 square miles, and dividing it with 7000000 people gives ~70000 per sq. mile. 

According to this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population the *entire urban area of Mumbai (20,400,000 people) has a density of 26,255 per sq. KM, or 68,000 per sq.mi!*

To me, hyper building density is not just about residential population density. It's not just about 10-story building density. It's not just about 500-foot building density. It's not just about vertical floor space density. It's all of those combined! :righton: :banana2:



UPDATE: The urbanized area of Hong Kong is only 272 km^2, giving a density of 66,666 per sq. mile. *Dhaka is perhaps the most dense urban metro area in the world, with 10,190,000 in 344 km^2, giving a density of 76,700 per square mile, beating Manhattan itself with its entire urban area!!* When I saw how small Dhaka was from Google Earth or Google satellite map, I knew that it had to be one of the densest in the world.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Shera said:


> Central Paris is purely consisted of 8-floor residential buildings. It's everywhere all over the inner city of Paris. I've been there and other than a few attractions and businesses there, it's mainly a residential area.


Inner Paris is maybe mainly residential but saying that it purely 8-floors residential building is wrong.
There is quite many jobs and office space inside the inner city (more office space than the whole Hong Kong)

Every building in this picture are office by exemple


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Minato ku said:


> Inner Paris is maybe mainly residential but saying that it purely 8-floors residential building is wrong.
> There is quite many jobs and office space inside the inner city (more office space than the whole Hong Kong)
> 
> Every building in this picture are office by exemple


Cool! 

I just saw so, soooo many 8-floor buildings all over central Paris ( a bit outward in central Paris, there were 7-floor buildings and then 6-floor buildings). So I just assumed that most were 8-floor buildings. That's cool.

Cool about the office buildings! Oh yea, Hong Kong does not have quite so many office buildings, yeah, most are residential and residential!

Are you "purely" Parisienne? Just kidding, but I'm always too curious! 

Damn, I think that Mumbai having 20,000,000 people and 68000 per sq. mile is more impressive than Dhaka having 76,700 per sq.mile and 10,000,000 people! :cheers1: :rock:


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

the Core of Shanghai


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Wow, cool pics_trees, thanks!!! This is clearer, more high-def than the others that I saw before!


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Personally I wouldn't claim that to be the "core" of Shanghai, since Jing'An (for example) isn't even in the pic. Northern Jing'An (as well as the newla developed areas in Putuo inside the ring road) might be the most dense area in all of Shanghai. I'd say the photo shows the southern parts of central Shanghai plus parts of Hongkou, Yangpu and Lujiazui which are not core areas. Awesome photo nonetheless!

Central Shanghai has population densities between 50.000 and 60.000 people / km2. That's ~130.000-155.000 people / square mile.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Shera said:


> I'd also say that the entire Hong Kong territory, minus the forested areas, has an overall density that is nearly equal to Manhattan. Let's say that 1/4 of the 400 sq. miles of Hong Kong is developed area, and that it contains 99% of the population. That would give 100 square miles, and dividing it with 7000000 people gives ~70000 per sq. mile.


did you even read the posts? Kowloon and HK island, the central areas comparable in size to Manhattan, (and not the New Territories, HK villages or New Towns) is *91,500 per sq. mile.*


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

xujiahui is so dense. sadly jin'an and changning cant be seen.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

staff said:


> Personally I wouldn't claim that to be the "core" of Shanghai, since Jing'An (for example) isn't even in the pic. Northern Jing'An (as well as the newla developed areas in Putuo inside the ring road) might be the most dense area in all of Shanghai. I'd say the photo shows the southern parts of central Shanghai plus parts of Hongkou, Yangpu and Lujiazui which are not core areas. Awesome photo nonetheless!
> 
> Central Shanghai has population densities between 50.000 and 60.000 people / km2. That's ~130.000-155.000 people / square mile.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The other aerial picture of Shanghai covers a bit more but it's so low-resolution and small. I have a feeling that the person who took the above picture has more somewhere but is not releasing all of it quite yet! I'd like to see more of it to the west! Where's that 7-12 megapixel picture you're hiding!?! :lol:

Miaoxingzhen appears to be the densest area outside the ring road that you were talking about, but inside the other "outer" ring road that is really the ring road. (Central parts of Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing have 50-60k per sq.km.)

Damn, that link you gave me about China planning to move another 300m people into cities in the next 15-20 years is a bit mind-blowing! Will Shanghai have 50+m people by 2029?



the spliff fairy said:


> did you even read the posts? Kowloon and HK island, the central areas comparable in size to Manhattan, (and not the New Territories, HK villages or New Towns) is *91,500 per sq. mile.*


Of course, I read your posts. Yep, I already read somewhere else that Kowloon and HK Island urban areas were over 90000/sq.mi, and just wanted to add that the entire urban area of HK territory still had over 66000/sq.mi, which is still amazing. That would mean that most other urban areas in HK had roughly 50000/sq.mi, other than central HK. Only two small towns in the United States have 50000/sq.mi other than Manhattan (which is not even a town/city itself). I just also thought that the 400000/sq.mile daytime density of downtown and midtown Manhattan still meant something.

Those facts are cool, don't ya agree? :cheers1:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep, NYC isn't alone in daytime figures - London also has 400,000 per sq. mile for 'The City' financial district by day, the West End shopping streets rise to 500,000, especially at Xmas (wherein Oxford St alone can 'hold' 500,000 shoppers at any one time). As for night the West End entertainment districts see in 500,000 - 1 million passing through: Soho- Piccadilly- Leicester Square- Tottenham Court Rd form one of the worlds biggest nightlife areas.




































For Asian cities I would imagine this would be a very similar storey, especially with the commercial/ financial hubs they have there.


----------



## Quiroz (Jun 16, 2009)

Omg, i don't think i can live in a place where the people are so crowded... I will be dead....!!!!:badnews:


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Source: http://urbanomnibus.net/2009/03/lets-talk-about-maps-2/

At night, downtown is dead. It's almost scary in Wall St. at 3am in the morning. Creeeepy!!! I've been so many places at 3am in the morning. Greenwich Village (near Union Square) is a fun place to be at during the wee-bit hours, where there are lots of college bars and nightclubs. Avoid the Bronx at all costs! 

Anyways, back to the topic.. I'm trying to find actual density figures for each district/block for Manhattan--for both residential and peak daytime.

UPDATE:



> The New York City day/night population map was interesting because the data presented on the map was not available to the public before. The data was produced for the US government and it is *classified*. We managed to get permission to use the data as long as the actual number values were not displayed. Because of this, the key for the map is vague.


 -same source as above

ARGH! I didnt know that the daytime census tract populations were considered to be classified???


----------



## Celebriton (Aug 5, 2009)

I saw many picture of Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Hall. I don't understand the design concept of the city. It's like spreading the hi-rise buildings all over the city and mixed with low-rise buildings together. Isn't gathering hi-rise buildings in one place better? What is the purpose of this layout? Like build low-rise blue-roof buildings near Pudong CBD area?

I never been to Shanghai, but seeing the photos here, I don't think Shanghai is a beauty city. First is because of the city layout that mixing hi-rises and low-rises. Second is because of the architecture of the buildings. It's like most of them build with poor design. They also mixed old era building and new era building, European building with Chinese building. It's very chaotic.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Celebriton said:


> I saw many picture of Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Hall. I don't understand the design concept of the city. It's like spreading the hi-rise buildings all over the city and mixed with low-rise buildings together. Isn't gathering hi-rise buildings in one place better? What is the purpose of this layout? Like build low-rise blue-roof buildings near Pudong CBD area?
> 
> I never been to Shanghai, but seeing the photos here, I don't think Shanghai is a beauty city. First is because of the city layout that mixing hi-rises and low-rises. Second is because of the architecture of the buildings. It's like most of them build with poor design. They also mixed old era building and new era building, European building with Chinese building. It's very chaotic.


I havent been to Shanghai either, and I cant really say for sure myself, but I think that the gov't just wants to make sure that the traffic congestion and other issues related to density would be kept in check. Also if the buildings are spread out with space in between, there would be room for taller buildings in the future without having to demolish recently-built skyscrapers. Perhaps the gov't thinks Shanghai is already dense enough for now and already growing fast enough, plus they just want to plan it carefully enough. The urban planning layout looks great with all of those planned future buildings and looks more like Manhattan or Sao Paulo (2x taller buildings than Sampa) with increased density.

About the old era and new era buildings.. I know it's really hard to not mix stuff as there was a bit of European influence in Shanghai in the 1800's and the early 1900's. Also, modern stuff might not be anything close to "modern" in the future. But I agree with you that Shanghai needs more "cool" buildings, like with what Hong Kong has. 

I think it's a bit difficult to keep the 5000-year old Chinese history alive in the modern architecture because of the added overhead costs associated with greater complexity in architectural design. Taipei 101 is a beautiful building, for example, but rather expensive if China tried to build those all over like with Dubai. At least China is growing for now and will most likely continue growing despite the economy being burdened by 4 times the people of the U.S.


----------



## Celebriton (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm not trolling this thread, I just express my feeling and opinion. Since Shanghai is planned to be the most importance city in China. Since Shanghai "massive" development relative new (started around mid 90), Shanghai can be built using hundred years of city development and planning experience, it should be became the "perfect" city design, like Dubai.

I saw many photos of Shanghai here, first, I'm so surprise about how fast the development. The more I saw more photos, the more I realize Shanghai, outside Pudong CBD, is not that beauty. Some buildings look.......(I'm sorry if I too rude).....like Chinese first cars, the design expressing low style and low artistic. Car ugly design is not a problem, but hi-rise buildings will last for decades, even almost a hundred year. It will became a scar in the future Shanghai skyline after Chinese people getting wealthier and demand more high quality and good design. Most of them also in the middle of the city too.

Several days ago, I look Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Center photos closely, and I realize that this is how the future Shanghai will look like. I can understand about today Shanghai development with many gap between hi-rises and low-rises in the middle, but I mistake. This is not because of development of the city progress cause-effect, it's because it planned to be look like that. I'm starting to disappointing. I don't understand what is the purpose of this kind of city layout. I hope someone can explain it to me.

I just think, if Shanghai has 4000 hi-rises, it will be great it Shanghai manage to gathering 500-1000 office buildings in Pudong CBD area. And another 3000-3500 residential hi-rises gathered in some kind of district or complex. There some part of the low rise buildings (like in the Bund area) and some part of hi-rises buildings. It dense, but is also has a huge public park for every district.

I think China still need learn a lot from West. I hope in the future (since most of land owned by government), China willingly to demolish all ugly buildings and unappropriated placement of buildings. I also hope there's no big problem in the process, since redesign city center is not easy and cheap.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

those ugly commic blocks were built in 1960-1990,need a long time to demolish them.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Uaarkson said:


> The U.S. would probably be rivaling China's rate of skyscraper construction if the real estate market hadn't imploded. Two years ago, any company on the fortune 500 could have built a supertall headquarters. China has the need, we have the money.
> 
> With oil becoming more scarce, mass-transit and high-density developments (read: "highrises") will become more popular. I have a feeling the comeback of the American city is on its way.


 No, we (the US) would nowhere be near rivaling China's rate. Given land use patterns and demography the U.S. metro areas are likely to be much more spread out then China's in the future both because of what has already been built in the U.S. (sprawl) and what will need to happen in China (much more transit dependant lifestyle by necessity as much as choice). 

There will be more TOD in the U.S. in the coming decades but it will resemble nothing like China's land use patters. People aren't going to suddenly abandon perfectly fine homes in the suburbs or make second homes out of them.


----------



## Celebriton (Aug 5, 2009)

^^But based on Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Center, they will replace most of commie blocks with another low rise buildings.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

nomarandlee said:


> No, we (the US) would nowhere be near rivaling China's rate. Given land use patterns and demography the U.S. metro areas are likely to be much more spread out then China's in the future both because of what has already been built in the U.S. (sprawl) and what will need to happen in China (much more transit dependant lifestyle by necessity as much as choice).
> 
> There will be more TOD in the U.S. in the coming decades but it will resemble nothing like China's land use patters. People aren't going to suddenly abandon perfectly fine homes in the suburbs or make second homes out of them.


TOD??? What does it stand for? Ahh.. I typed TOD in google and the first listing was "Transit Oriented Development"

http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html

thanks anyways for the answer


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Shera said:


> TOD??? What does it stand for?


transit oriented development.


----------



## Shera (Oct 11, 2009)

Yeah, I live 1 block away from a bus stop, there are 9 restaurants within 2 blocks of where I live, 2 bars, and 2 gas stores. But what I miss the most is the subway.. it's the best thing for NYC! Living close to a subway station is probably the most important thing for a LOT of people living over there.

A lot of Americans (including I) still prefer to drive by car so that they do not have to rent cars or use taxi's when far away from their homes. I guess that's why the development of high-speed rail networks still has not yet happened here in the US.


----------

