# Can your city beat this ?



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I just love this pic


----------



## LuckyLuke (Mar 29, 2005)

No and I'm glad about it because it looks horrible!
Where is it?


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

That has to be in Hong Kong and frankly I must say that it looks worse than sprawl. Yes I said it.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

LuckyLuke said:


> No and I'm glad about it because it looks horrible!
> Where is it?


To be honest it is nowhere. The pic is photoshopped. 


I just want to know if such a place already excists somewhere.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

And by the way thousands of people die building those residential highrises. We all know that super tall highrises are not the way to house a population, but a mix of midrises. Why are they building these anyways, Hong Kong's population isn't growing that fast(43,000/year) and slowing fast. Also it will be interesting to see the Chinese tearing them down in a few decades.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

polako said:


> And by the way thousands of people die building those residential highrises. We all know that super tall highrises are not the way to house a population, but a mix of midrises. Why are they building these anyways, Hong Kong's population isn't growing that fast(43,000/year) and slowing fast. Also it will be interesting to see the Chinese tearing them down in a few decades.


You should visit Hong Kong than you would change what you have said. There is really, really no place for midrise buildings in Hong Kong. 

Where do have your information about Hong Kongs population grow from? In the Shung Hing Square they had a HK timeline with the population what they expect in the next years. Your number is too small.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Absolutly great! Have you visited already the Hong Commie thread in the European commieblock forum?


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

Human population growing, Hong Kong just ahead of rest the world and a showcase for how city will look like in few decades later.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> Absolutly great! Have you visited already the Hong Commie thread in the European commieblock forum?


Yes, now 

Nice pics


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)




----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

Funny...I was also thinking it was photoshopped. I like the sci-fi-ness of it...explosively high highrises but I wouldn't want them in the real world. The sense of entrapment must be immense, and I can only imagine the challenges that such structures would pose for fire security unless they are equipped with super-mega-sprinklers.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

It doesn't necessarily have to be photoshoped though, if the begining of those buildings is just a little bit under what we see in the photo and the top just a bit over the part in the photo.

Take the photo from a good angle and at night, and you only need 170m residential towers, which Honk Kong has.

But then it could also be photoshoped, the easiest way to know would be to see what is the actual hight of these blue/pink tower blocks


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

nasty...


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

Those towers have transit links and street level retail that any North American city would envy. Not to mention parks and public places nearby.

This is Hong Kong island. If you want to make money, you build up. 









As mentioned at SSP
This








is actually this:


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

The pictures are very misleading and are designed in a way to make it look as dense as possible. The photo above shows the area above is actually quite nice, and doesn't look much different to downtown Vancouver.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

polako said:


> And by the way thousands of people die building those residential highrises. We all know that super tall highrises are not the way to house a population, but a mix of midrises. Why are they building these anyways, Hong Kong's population isn't growing that fast(43,000/year) and slowing fast. Also it will be interesting to see the Chinese tearing them down in a few decades.


43,000/year isn't considered fast?


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

Bleh, ugly and bland!


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

The thing is pink and green :tongue3:


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

I actually think both pictures look pretty cool, and I wouldn't mind living in buildings like that if the units were a reasonable size. Although I'd prefer them to be maybe not quite that high. 20-30 stories (80-100m) sounds good to me.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Sprawl looks alot nicer than that.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Sprawl is a lot worse to a healthy lifestyle. At least people are not driving to get to places. They walk, and take transit.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

I disagree that sprawl looks nicer than that. Well, it may look nicer, but that doesn't mean it is nicer. I was going to say HK, but yeah, in retrospect I should have known it was photoshopped. But I bet you could get a picture very similar to that in HK if you tried (looks like some people have already posted a few).


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

I would not want to live in the centre of those! It must be horrible!!


----------



## Sideshow_Bob (Jan 14, 2005)

I like them.. Nice to hear that there are transit links and street level retail in these areas.
Only bad thing is that they put so many identical towers next together in a strict formation.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

Yes.

No, jk. I _like_ how sprawl looks, but high/mid-rises are much more pratical obviously. But still, even when I stay at hotels i hate how I have to climb up a flight of stairs (unless its close to the elevator).


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

Well, let me put it this way: My city (either one) would _not_ want to _beat_ that!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

HK is the closest to becoming a coruscant but much better


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

lotrfan55345 said:


> Yes.
> 
> No, jk. I _like_ how sprawl looks, but high/mid-rises are much more pratical obviously. But still, even when I stay at hotels i hate how I have to climb up a flight of stairs (unless its close to the elevator).


Every flat in HK has an elevator


----------



## rembau1958 (Oct 10, 2005)

OMG. I would go nuts if I have to live in such pidgeon holes! :crazy:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

rembau1958 said:


> OMG. I would go nuts if I have to live in such pidgeon holes! :crazy:


I happen to live in one of those pidgeon holes almost all my life and I find it comfortable


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Every flat in HK has an elevator



Hopefully, imagine gowing up 35 floors by stair everyday.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

i would die if i had to live there.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Awesome!


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

Seems many forumers feel this living environment terrible. But they are actually nicer to live than you think. It's just a matter of habit. We HKers have got used to living in "this" for decades. 

I can tell you the place I live is a bit more dense than that last real pic. I am from the new residential clusters in West Kowloon, Cheung Sha Wan District. The cluster I am now living in has 20 over-50 stories buildings in a site of 330 meter x 160 meter, with 8000 flats housing over 20,000 people. About half of the units face close building view. But my flat faces outside and is on the 41st floor so I can get a very open & distant view.

I found the neighbours living there happily. Dense is a drawback but there is something that can compensate, like nice club house, convenience, decent facilities.


----------



## Rene Nunez (Mar 14, 2005)

So many narrow-minded Americans who are use to sprawl and scared of anything else. SO pathetic...I personally would love to live in on of those. The higher the better.ANd the ^^above comment is very true.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

But I have to admit that this is not for the majority of people, even for HKers. My area Cheung Sha Wan(in West Kowloon) and the area Tseung Kwan O(seen in the pic posted earlier in this thread) are usually critizised by HK people to be the most nasty new residential development due to the density. 

My area Cheung Sha Wan is more dense but only has a small cluster of 25 tall buildings concentrated together. The majority of the district is not very dense with more open space. But Tseung Kwan O is dense all over the whole district. 

I've tried to count the number of skyscrapers in Tseung Kwan O on the map, which is almost 300 now in an area of a few square km, housing more than 400,000 people. As Tseung Kwan O is still developing, a massive residential estate(named Dream City) of more than 50 blocks of 50-story buildings is planned to be finished by around 2010, with a total of 21,000 flats.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

I quite like it. Looks better than sprawl anyway in my opinion.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

Oh, I'm not against living in those, they are just incredibly ugly buildings.


----------



## Rhoy (Aug 23, 2005)

Tom_Green said:


> I just love this pic


*the question should be: could you live here? or how much brave do you have to be to live there?*


----------



## C|2azyCanuck (May 18, 2005)

No where near the density or height but here is Concord Pacific Place in Vancouver.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

Rhoy said:


> *the question should be: could you live here? or how much brave do you have to be to live there?*


This is photoshopped. Please refer to the last pic posted by Skybean which is real.

But Hong Kong really had that dense cluster in the past. It is the Kowloon Walled City which had been torn down in the last decade. Please visit the following to have a look of it.

http://www.twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/Main.html


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

virtual said:


> Hopefully, imagine gowing up 35 floors by stair everyday.


It's good for the heart though


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

WANCH said:


> It's good for the heart though



Quite a pain each time you buy some furniture...


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I live in a village with 8.000 people and i walked in the high rise apartment districts in Hong Kong. I wouldn`t have a problem to live there. Max 1km to the ocean and max 1km to the green mountains.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Skopie said:


> The pictures are very misleading and are designed in a way to make it look as dense as possible. The photo above shows the area above is actually quite nice, and doesn't look much different to downtown Vancouver.


nice? It looks horrible!


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

wow...that is depressing!


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Rene Nunez said:


> So many narrow-minded Americans who are use to sprawl and scared of anything else. SO pathetic...I personally would love to live in on of those. The higher the better.ANd the ^^above comment is very true.


*I guess i am crazy for thinking that a house like this*








*looks better than this :crazy: *


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> *I guess i am crazy for thinking that a house like this*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But the second one is only photoshopped. It's fake


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

These two are real:


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

^^ Great photos.

Not quite as extreme but still  

Amazing indeed.


----------



## JohnnyMass (Feb 6, 2005)

i suppose that's what an urban hell looks like...


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Or this


----------



## JohnnyMass (Feb 6, 2005)

that's the purgatory!


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

Rene Nunez said:


> So many narrow-minded Americans who are use to sprawl and scared of anything else. SO pathetic...I personally would love to live in on of those. The higher the better.ANd the ^^above comment is very true.


Scared? What part of common sense involves fright?

That kind of development is simply not a natural environment for human habitation. The "healthy" urban lifestyle isn't so healthy when taken to extremes. Breathing the air alone is enough to give you lung cancer in an environment with no ventilation. Never mind the other kinds of pollution: never seeing natural sunlight, yet never seeing darkness either; high levels of noise pollution 24/7; and the many zany chemicals that turn up in the water of high-density areas. 

Then there's the psychological factor. Skyline views are wonderful, but there's nothing inspiring about seeing someone else's window 20 feet from your own. Elevators are all good and fun till they break down and you have to climb 30 flights of stairs with a full load of laundry. And the sheer lack of privacy... if one of the 20 people sharing a wall with you likes to play loud music at 2 am, you can forget sleeping. 

And this all assumes you aren't living in a high-crime area. If you are, god help you. Sorry, I'll take mind-numbing suburban sprawl over Borg-like density any day.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

As a matter of fact, with highrise living (not those photoshoped pics of course), the noise polution is extremely small, you have a huge loads of light, compared to mid-rise living.


----------



## didu (Jun 13, 2005)

virtual said:


> Quite a pain each time you buy some furniture...


That's why you hire someone else to do it.


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Oh the HongKong Walled City is very cool, a cyberpunk-style multi-layered biogenic urban agglomeration just in one structure.


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

what happen to you guys? so you like skyscraper but you don't want to live in one.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

saigon_monsooner said:


> Oh the HongKong Walled City is very cool, a cyberpunk-style multi-layered biogenic urban agglomeration just in one structure.


Yes! It's the densest and most fascinating living environment ever on earth. No wonder some foreigners came here to give it the last salute before it's torn down. Also, two books with beautiful photos were published by Bristish and Dutch writers telling the stories about the Walled City. And a film was made about the stories happening around this interesting structure last decade.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

saigon_monsooner said:


> Oh the HongKong Walled City is very cool, a cyberpunk-style multi-layered biogenic urban agglomeration just in one structure.


Only thing is it doesn't exist (any more)


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> Nice, Massive when taking photos, yet living in that size of flat is brutal--- Most Hong Kongers live in humble small flats like those in Czech Republic, Poland, East Germany... I think Hong Kongers are managed to look more Ideal Japanese or Ideal East German (Highly Urbanized + Industrialized) than any countries... not only because they are too packed. If they can't find land to build up, why don't they exploit all their farmlands and fill sprawls in every possible areas? Their population density is only about 20,000 inhabitants per square kilometres, but they managed to build as if they have 100,000 inhabitants per square kilometres, yet this makes Hong Kongers proud of their commie-scrapers. Usually they don't adopt those old-fashioned commieblock-like architecture since mid-1990s, instead they are imitating developed areas in Japanese, Australian, Canadian cities, or sometimes even Benidorm or Sao Paulo (I don't think they got those idea from there but it's probably reverse--- Brazillians and Chinese cities are imitating Hong Kong)
> 
> But no matter how they make it looking more developed, they pack lower-class and most impressively, middle-class which includes 50-60% of the population are living in flats smaller than 1000 sq.ft. packed with 2-6 people. They pay a lot for their flats, unlike Canadians living in an old-styled condo.


True but HK has an identity of it's own  But the thing is, most of these developments are well planned compared to those in other cities.

Especially if you live in one that provides good ammenities like swimming pool, tennis courts, gym or a shuttle bus to Central!


----------



## vvill (Sep 20, 2002)

Justadude said:


> Scared? What part of common sense involves fright?
> 
> That kind of development is simply not a natural environment for human habitation. The "healthy" urban lifestyle isn't so healthy when taken to extremes. Breathing the air alone is enough to give you lung cancer in an environment with no ventilation. Never mind the other kinds of pollution: never seeing natural sunlight, yet never seeing darkness either; high levels of noise pollution 24/7; and the many zany chemicals that turn up in the water of high-density areas.
> 
> ...


man... honestly, study the plan and how buildings are arranged in hong kong before you comment because hong kong's highrises are unique in its own way and are very different from those found in most western countries.

first building design can adapt to the higher density and orientation becomes the key to success. natural ventilation is very important in hong kong and cross ventilation is encouraged within the flat (this is very uncommon to western highrises). also, it's very rare that all rooms in a flat will only face one direction and they tend to be facing at least 2 and with the use of bay windows, natural sunlight intake is maximized. 

and there's never really a case of having someone's window 20 feets from yours. there're tight building regulations in hong kong as well to make sure that doesn't happen.

and for all the highrise residential bldgs, they are equipped with at least 3 lifts (30 floors) and some with 7 lifts (60-70 floors) so even if one breaks down the others will still function normally.


----------



## vvill (Sep 20, 2002)

and one interesting thing is also that... don't think as if hong kong people are *forced* to live in such environment because they *do* have a choice to live in houses and they could be affordable to most middle-class families. it's just that they put convenience as their top priority and in fact high-rises aren't as bad as you thought cos they come with a wide range of amenities - swimming pools, badminton courts, gym, tennis court, squash...

and i can give you some figures as a reference...

a house in suburban areas will cost about 3000HKD per square feet (360USD) while an apartment also in suburban areas will cost about 4000-4500HKD per square feet (550USD)... not to talk about apartment buildings in the city centre which can go up to 7000HKD per suqare feet (850USD). i'm not taking luxury developments into consideration btw.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

vvill said:


> man... honestly, study the plan and how buildings are arranged in hong kong before you comment because hong kong's highrises are unique in its own way and are very different from those found in most western countries.
> 
> first building design can adapt to the higher density and orientation becomes the key to success. natural ventilation is very important in hong kong and cross ventilation is encouraged within the flat (this is very uncommon to western highrises). also, it's very rare that all rooms in a flat will only face one direction and they tend to be facing at least 2 and with the use of bay windows, natural sunlight intake is maximized.
> 
> ...


OMG! vvill! You quote my apartment/home here!
Actually, the floor plan is one of the building of a project developed by SHKP(Asian best property developer) called liberte. It's located in Cheung Sha Wan in West Kowloon. This floor plan should be Block 8 of the project and my home is in Block 6.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Ahh...home 

It's all about the angles....

Now here's the same area in a different angle:




















Doesn't look too bad now does it?

On my 'podium', I've got a swimming pool, table tennis and badminton courts - all within less than a 60 second walk. There are also atleast 2 gyms within a 2 minute walk. Not to mention Quarry Bay Park - a huge stretch of a park that has 2 fairly sized kids playgrounds as well as a water promenade - makes for a lovely walk in the evening, and you usually see joggers and fishermen in the mornings. A mere 5 minute walk from Tai Koo Shing - if that. Then there's Cityplaza - it's not Times Square or Pacific Place, but it's decent enough - and targets middle/upper middle class - i.e. Bossini, U2 and Giordano, but then you've also got your Armani, Tommy, Polo, Rudolph.

It's all about convenience in Hong Kong really - you give up (or do you? Consider the house prices) luxury for convenience. 

What you also have to understand are the house prices in Hong Kong. My friend here in Columbus - his parents own a 3000 sq ft that cost US$ 300k. That's considered fairly expensive. My 900 sq ft apartment back home in Hong Kong costs more than that.



> with the exception of those living the rural areas or housing developments such as Hong Lok Yuen or Fairview Park.
> 
> Those who I know who live in a house in HK are people like Brenda & Kai Bong Chau, Li Ka Shing or Dickson Poon Or some expats with kids that go to The Hong Kong International School!


Depends what you define by rural areas - the houses in Sai Kung for example, are a lot bigger than the likes of Red Hill and cost less - although still in the HK$ 10 - 20m regions. Some higher naturally.

Yea I've got a few school friends (South Island - my school , HKIS, West Island, Island etc that live in houses.

You pretty much do have to be in the 'rich' category to live in a house. Upper middle-class just doesn't do it.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 1, 2005)

vvill said:


> and one interesting thing is also that... don't think as if hong kong people are *forced* to live in such environment because they *do* have a choice to live in houses and they could be affordable to most middle-class families. it's just that they put convenience as their top priority and in fact high-rises aren't as bad as you thought cos they come with a wide range of amenities - swimming pools, badminton courts, gym, tennis court, squash...
> 
> and i can give you some figures as a reference...
> 
> a house in suburban areas will cost about 3000HKD per square feet (360USD) while an apartment also in suburban areas will cost about 4000-4500HKD per square feet (550USD)... not to talk about apartment buildings in the city centre which can go up to 7000HKD per suqare feet (850USD). i'm not taking luxury developments into consideration btw.


Some additional info for forumers here to have a better understanding of the property market in HK. The 1st hand market now in HK is a bit crazy(I think it's a small bubble). The prices are usually 20% to 30% higher than 2nd hand of the same quality. 

As the 1st hand market don't have much value for reference(too "bubble" and only accounts for 10% of the market), I will talk about the 2nd hand market which accounts for 90% of the market transaction value in 2005.

The following are the rough 2ND HAND PRICES (quoted in USD per feet) for ORDINARY(non-luxury) residential estates market(the main-stream):

1) New Territories(suburb) - ranging from about $220 of Tin Shui Wai(the most remote suburb) to $550 of Tsing Yi(connected to Central by airport express rail)
2) Kowloon - ranging from about $330 of Amoy Garden(famous for being the place where SARS broke out in 2003, few hundreds died) to $800 of Olympic Station
3) HK Island - ranging from about $450 of Nam Fung Centre(the oldest estate in HK Island, 29 years) to about $850 for the newer estates in Quarry Bay

The above are only average prices and price within the same estate can vary a lot for different view, height or condition.

Actually, you can easily find properties cheaper than lower-end prices of the above list because the list only include the popular estates with more transactions and those with scale, which tends to be higher in price. 

So, it's not that difficult or expensive to live in the city area of HK if you don't mind living in older, messier, less famous or smaller-scale properties.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> Depends what you define by rural areas - the houses in Sai Kung for example, are a lot bigger than the likes of Red Hill and cost less - although still in the HK$ 10 - 20m regions. Some higher naturally.
> 
> Yea I've got a few school friends (South Island - my school , HKIS, West Island, Island etc that live in houses.
> 
> You pretty much do have to be in the 'rich' category to live in a house. Upper middle-class just doesn't do it.


I meant those who lived in The New Territories like those near Sai Kung, Ma On Shan, Fan Ling or Yuen Long. Also some in either Lantau, Lamma or Cheung Chau.

Oh man, you go to South Island School! It's one of the best ESF schools in HK!


----------



## _zner_ (May 24, 2005)

is there any lots of jobs in hong kong with different positions and skills?


do you think if you are in advertising course, you will have an instant job in HK?


coz im on adverstising course... how about industrial and interior design?


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

What's most important is that you feel psychologically comfortable living in them or not.

Imagine a cluster of eight 100 storey condo towers only let's say 30 metres from each tower. And you live on say the 10th floor.

Claustrophobic I say!


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Facilities like parks, playgrounds, sports facilities like courts should be provided. Increases quality of life, as well as spaces out the buildings.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> ^^^ This simply makes Canadians envy.


Lol you mean it makes Thompsoners envy. lol, actually i am surprised it makes you envy, do they even have highrises in Thompson?? Anyways about Canadians, even low rise buildings have elevators, it shouldn't be surprising.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

(((myx))) said:


> is there any lots of jobs in hong kong with different positions and skills?
> 
> 
> do you think if you are in advertising course, you will have an instant job in HK?
> ...


HK has alot of fields that you can get to and the advertising scene there is one of the most active in Asia. But you will have more advantage getting a job in HK if you are fluent in Cantonese!

redstone, true that recreational facilites improves the quality of living especially when you're living in a high-rise!


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Zaki said:


> Lol you mean it makes Thompsoners envy. lol, actually i am surprised it makes you envy, do they even have highrises in Thompson?? Anyways about Canadians, even low rise buildings have elevators, it shouldn't be surprising.


Their residential building looks almost like our skyscrapers in Toronto or Vancouver... they have more than 6 elevators in each building(I've heard the project--- Island Resort, with 59 storey each building ) , isn't that rare in Canadian condos? Low rise? Mostly they have 2 or 3(rare for less than 80m) elevators and that's all.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

polako said:


> That has to be in Hong Kong and frankly I must say that it looks worse than sprawl. Yes I said it.



:lol: I have to disagree though I accept any form of development that makes our world look more like Coruscant. Suburban sprawl displays a sea of "glitterly" lights across the city at night. 



Skybean said:


> Those towers have transit links and street level retail that any North American city would envy. Not to mention parks and public places nearby.
> 
> This is Hong Kong island. If you want to make money, you build up.
> 
> ...


Those buildings look beautiful. I would love to live in one of them.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

HK doesn't have to be Coruscant, it has an identity of it's own


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

vvill said:


> man... honestly, study the plan and how buildings are arranged in hong kong before you comment because hong kong's highrises are unique in its own way and are very different from those found in most western countries.


Please read my comment again. Nowhere did I say that there was anything wrong with the way Hong Kong is arranged. In fact, I never said anything about HK at all. I was simply responding to another forumer's comment that Americans are somehow too stupid or too ignorant to accept high-density development. 

I'm sorry, but I simply think that a lot of forumers here have an irrational assumption that high-density development is _automatically_ superior to low-density development. There are plenty of reasons to believe that a badly-designed highrise district is inferior to even the most generic suburban development. I would have to think that someone who refuses to consider this as a possibilty is, at the very least, on par with us ignorant Americans.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Sexas said:


> what happen to you guys? so you like skyscraper but you don't want to live in one.


Basically. :lol:


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

I prefer Naboo over Coruscant.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> Their residential building looks almost like our skyscrapers in Toronto or Vancouver... they have more than 6 elevators in each building(I've heard the project--- Island Resort, with 59 storey each building ) , isn't that rare in Canadian condos? Low rise? Mostly they have 2 or 3(rare for less than 80m) elevators and that's all.


well my building is only 20 storey's and it has 4. Usually here up to 25 storey's its 4 elevators and then more than 25 you get 6 or more, so its preety similar to HK.


----------



## Itarilde (Nov 18, 2005)

A newly designed Public Housing in Shekkipmei (Two Blocks, around 3000 units):

by _Pauper_ , www.hk-place.com


----------



## Arvo (Jul 9, 2005)

That public housing in Shek Kip Mei is really nice...one of the nicest i've seen in hk


----------



## Castle_Bravo (Jan 6, 2006)

When i was 5 i lived in a flat on the 4 storey. It wasn't big (around 60m2) but i had a look at Utrecht (Nederland). I loved this flat. No i'm living in a house in Poland near Warsaw. The house is big (over 200m2) but the nearest shop is 8min. walking, a fast tram (WKD) station- 12minutes. School-6minutes by bicycle etc. It is nice to have a room with 26m2, but it's a long way to other people, shops etc. I prefer cities and i love them, and it is my dream to live in a luxurius or a midlle class flat, on the 40storey.
PS: Sory for this english, but i'm still learning this language.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Public housing in HK have improved alot and is rivalling Singapore for the best housing scheme. 

People looking at the photos find our homes insane but at least we feel safe living there. Even in HK housing estates. People there can sleep at night without hearing any gun fire


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

I love nice public housing.

Nice and cheap... and also very well maintained.

Over here, each district has a Town Council to overlook the entire area, including public housing. It's also incharge of miscellenous maintainance.

Residence have to pay 'miscellenous fees' to their respective Town Councils for the maintainance. Which is quite low.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

redstone said:


> I love nice public housing.
> 
> Nice and cheap... and also very well maintained.
> 
> ...


Same as well. Anyway, it's an advantage for Singapore cause it keeps the community safe and efficient.

HK has a same program as well especially with the HK Housing Authority.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

It's stunned me but ugly. I don't like that kind of cloning buildings.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Mosaic said:


> It's stunned me but ugly. I don't like that kind of cloning buildings.


You'll see alot of them in HK 

But this one is one of the weirdest


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

Eventhough, I am not a fan of cloning one but I really like The sorrento a lot.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

WANCH said:


> You'll see alot of them in HK
> 
> But this one is one of the weirdest


It's okay but it's just a bit too old.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Mosaic said:


> It's okay but it's just a bit too old.


They're not old scrapers. They were built years back.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Mosaic said:


> It's stunned me but ugly. I don't like that kind of cloning buildings.


I think it's best to term most of the residential buildings more than 10-storey as *commie-scrapers.
*_
_

It's strange that Hong Kong has not many usual commieblocks like those in communist country, but it's a kind of messy complex with 10+ (Usually 20+ storeys).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> I think it's best to term most of the residential buildings more than 10-storey as *commie-scrapers.
> *_
> _
> 
> It's strange that Hong Kong has not many usual commieblocks like those in communist country, but it's a kind of messy complex with 10+ (Usually 20+ storeys).


I don't agree with the term commieblocks since most of these flats are owned by private developers. And that's why they don't look usual compared to those of communist or former communist countries since they were built or owned by the government.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

WANCH said:


> I don't agree with the term commieblocks since most of these flats are owned by private developers. And that's why they don't look usual compared to those of communist or former communist countries since they were built or owned by the government.


Singapore's public housing are all owned by govt... But a cluster, designated a Conservation Area had been privatised. But they're still considered public housing.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

redstone said:


> Singapore's public housing are all owned by govt... But a cluster, designated a Conservation Area had been privatised. But they're still considered public housing.


But Singapore isn't a communist country. So I won't call SG's residential high-rises commieblocks whether public or private.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Repeated designs are quite common around the world, but in Hong Kong and other densely populated cities, the scale is far larger. In Hong Kong, developments usually come in large numbers of buildings. In North America, there are only a few elevations for a subdivision, and they do repeat, but since they're single family homes the repeating patterns are not as noticeable. Similarly, it is rare that a North American development would encompass a large number of buildings under one developer, so the scale of repeatedness will be far smaller.


----------



## Leeigh (Nov 8, 2003)

Tom_Green said:


> I just love this pic


incredible but I wouldn't wanna live there...oh god no! I'd rather live in a sparse neighbourhood with low rises and far and between or at least not stacked like that! Geezzz...that is a lil pathetic tho to live in that crowded concrete jungle...I see that the city is ovepopulated and in dire need of a new 'town' or suburbs...or just create a whole new city elsewhere!
awesome shot but in real life...I'd say kinda suck.


----------



## Leeigh (Nov 8, 2003)

Panamaniac said:


> Well, let me put it this way: My city (either one) would _not_ want to _beat_ that!


I hear yah! :cheers:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Leeigh said:


> incredible but I wouldn't wanna live there...oh god no! I'd rather live in a sparse neighbourhood with low rises and far and between or at least not stacked like that! Geezzz...that is a lil pathetic tho to live in that crowded concrete jungle...I see that the city is ovepopulated and in dire need of a new 'town' or suburbs...or just create a whole new city elsewhere!
> awesome shot but in real life...I'd say kinda suck.


I'm used to living in a place like that but there are alot of HKers who would wanna live in a nice house with a garage and a garden


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thousands of people die building residential highrises. That's a new one. :hahaha: 

If Hong Kong had any new land to use, it would've been used up long ago. You can't build much on a bunch of coastal rocks.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Similarly, it is rare that a North American development would encompass a large number of buildings under one developer, so the scale of repeatedness will be far smaller.


Thank God for small mercies....


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

If HK had more land, I doubt you'll be seeing alot of these kinds of high-rises.


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Fairview park is not too bad, but commuting will take longer because you need to take its private bus lines out into urban areas and then switch to public transit.

Or you can drive on ridiculously expensive gasoline, if you like. Point is, you don't have to live in highrises if you can't stand it. Some foreigners (for example, www.bigwhiteguy.com) also like living in village houses for the extra space and quiet environment. Those are relatively affordable.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

superchan7 said:


> Fairview park is not too bad, but commuting will take longer because you need to take its private bus lines out into urban areas and then switch to public transit.
> 
> Or you can drive on ridiculously expensive gasoline, if you like. Point is, you don't have to live in highrises if you can't stand it. Some foreigners (for example, www.bigwhiteguy.com) also like living in village houses for the extra space and quiet environment. Those are relatively affordable.


Or Palm Springs and Hong Lok Yuen.

I wouldn't mind living in Fairview Park as long as you have a car. But the place is still far from the city centre lets say, Central or Tsim Sha Tsui. But I think it would be convenient if you either work or have a business in Yuen Long.

Fairview Park


----------



## MILIUX (Sep 13, 2002)

How insignificant would you feel if you live there!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

MILIUX said:


> How insignificant would you feel if you live there!


What do you mean? Anyway these are affordable houses but the only thing is they're far from the city centre.


----------



## KJBrissy (Jan 9, 2006)

How about this

http://www.ct4host.lunarpages.com/bne/IMG_0410_1024.jpg

The admirality in Brisbane. It is the way the photo is taken. Taken by Defec8r


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

KJBrissy said:


> How about this
> 
> http://www.ct4host.lunarpages.com/bne/IMG_0410_1024.jpg
> 
> The admirality in Brisbane. It is the way the photo is taken. Taken by Defec8r


Not bad! Reminds me of some luxurious HK flats


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Are those public housing? 

That's how public housing should be, instead of slum-like.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 11, 2002)

It seems that we have two camps here;
One that prioritises living standards, personal space and privacy and therefore favour lower density development.
The other that prioritises sustainability, convenience, efficient use of land etc and therefore favour higher density development.

Both of these viewpoints are fine but some people are so far at one end or the other that they fail to recognise the problems associated with these differing urban conditions. Neither high density nor low density is necessicarily the correct approach in every situation, there's no need for vast 50 story public housing estates in an average European city of, say half a million, but in HK such things are necessary otherwise you get things like Kowloon Walled City (which, though highly fascinating is not the kind of environment that anyone should be living in).

While I lean more to the side of high density, high-rise development as the more sustainable approach to urban living and in general am very much against suburban sprawl, I also recognise that there are many problems with high density development and these must be addressed. I would also say that there should be a limit to the level of density, places can be so crowded that the benefits that are usually associated with higher density become offset by the strain they put on the city. High density + good infrastructue and services does usually mean more sustainability but only to a certain point. In the same ways as vast suburban sprawl, 16 lane highways and resulting air pollution are not sustainable, Kowloon Walled City was not sustainable - not environmentally not socially not economically.

It's always about compromise and I welcome both approaches, the debate stops either group going too far and hopefully leads to more balanced solutions.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

redstone said:


> Are those public housing?
> 
> That's how public housing should be, instead of slum-like.


Nope they're not public housing. You can tell if it's public housing because of their distinct architecture.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Andrew said:


> It seems that we have two camps here;
> One that prioritises living standards, personal space and privacy and therefore favour lower density development.
> The other that prioritises sustainability, convenience, efficient use of land etc and therefore favour higher density development.
> 
> ...


Hong Kong may built alot of high-density residential projects but most of them are carefully planned


----------

