# Does Hong Kong cheat?



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Does Hong Kong cheat in its rankings as a major skyscraper center?

Well, not intentionally, of course. But on appearances:

Hong Kong, unlike NYC and Chgo, is built on the slope of a mountain that is rather steep for an urban setting. Its impressive group of skyscrapers climb that slope, giving them an appearance of height far greater than what you would find in Midtown or the Loop.

Here in the US, San Francisco plays by the rules; the vast majority of its super tall buildings are close to the relatively flat Embarcadero or on slightly higher Montgomery Street inland. These structures tend to tower over the downtown hills (Telegraph, Nob, Russian); so different from Hong Kong.

If HK were "flattened", would its preceived high rise prominence get flattened, too? Talk about literally not playing on a level playing field!


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

1. There aren't many towers that are built along slopes in HK.

2. Most of the towers that are built along the slopes are lowrises or midrises.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Height measurements are made from the base to top, not from sea level, so the elevation and topographic setting are irrelevant.

40-50 storey residential skyscrapers are a way of life in Hong Kong. That is hardly the case in any American city, not even New York.


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

some people need to check data in emporis and other website
dont just guess the height of skyscraper and said its not too high,while this guy never been in hong kong
the height is calculated from the base of skyscraper,not sea level,and

hk has
3900 building which is higher than 100m
while ny has only
800 building which is higher than 100m
both share same amount of buiding which is higer than 200m
and,the data in hk is actually quite underrated by emporis

hong kong is skyscraper centre city in world,because all of them live in high rise,make its the highest usage of skyscraper city in the world.in addition,most escalator of course,im sorry,no city in USA or in world come close to hk,even new york,as hkskyline said,living in 40-50storey is a very common life n hk,while in US?

its how interesting that people in ny and chicago still think they are skyscraper dominator,and when they know there a city call hong kong,that already get the new skyscrper title for decades ago,they seems like never accept the fact,then said hong kong is cheat,or even worse than San francisico,what a big joke


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Hong Kong is the king of tall buildings in the world, "cheating" or not.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

I'm thinking he's talking about appearance, not actual statistical BS from Emporis.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

On appearance I think that having higher mountains behind the city actually makes the skyline looks smaller


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Who cares if it is? It's a kickass skyline!


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

Not really, the most noticed skyline, HKG island is relatively flat, and Kowloon is flat too. Central Plaza, BoCHK, 2IFC are all built on flat land. There are some built on the cliff but most of them are unsignificant and un-noticable in the skyline. The only tall skyscraper I think thats built on a cliff is Highcliff:


----------



## CHANEL (Aug 22, 2005)

YES IT DOES CHEAT


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

spyguy999 said:


> I'm thinking he's talking about appearance, not actual statistical BS from Emporis.


you're right, spyguy. that's exactly what I was getting at: visual impact. Nothing statistical. HK's skyline appears taller than it really is because of the variations in elevation from which it rises. That was all I was getting at.


----------



## Anekdote (Apr 11, 2005)

CHANEL said:


> YES IT DOES CHEAT


Dude, don't be so jealous


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

As you can see, the tallest buildings are built on sea level, while the only buildings built on the mountains are mid to high rises around 20 storeys and villas. With Highcliff being probably the only exception although it makes little impact on the skyline.


----------



## Islander (Jul 29, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> you're right, spyguy. that's exactly what I was getting at: visual impact. Nothing statistical. HK's skyline appears taller than it really is because of the variations in elevation from which it rises. That was all I was getting at.


If you're talking visual impact, Hong Kong's skyline doesn't benefit nearly as much from having some of its buildings propped up as it does from having its main cluster of buildings in a strip-like formation along the coast. NY and Chicago's skylines are basically big, roundish blobs of skyscrapers (two blobs in Manhattan's case). For example, if you have two equally-sized armies of on either side of you, and one has its men arranged in a squarish formation while the other's men are stretched much wider but with far fewer rows, then assuming you can't see over the heads of the men in the first row of either army, the second army will seem much larger. But this is just skylines; aerial views are a different story.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Hong Kong's tallest buildings are not built along slopes or hillsides. 2 IFC, Bank of China, The Centre, and Central Plaza are all built on level land near sea level. So are the Sorrento towers, Langham, Harbourfront Landmark, and the Harbourside. The only exception are Highcliff and Summit, but they're tucked behind the main skyline and barely visible from the Kowloon waterfront in Tsim Sha Tsui.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Height measurements are made from the base to top, not from sea level, so the elevation and topographic setting are irrelevant.
> 
> 40-50 storey residential skyscrapers are a way of life in Hong Kong. That is hardly the case in any American city, not even New York.


Of course the height measurements are made from the base to top, everyone knows, what they don't know or they can't possibily see are the places where towers are situated especially true for the HK with its limited flat shoreline/land of its hilly backdrop, you will see most its landforms steadily increase in slope like with towers building up kinda like cascading. So it creates some awsome view of top over top of building scenes in majority of its metro area with hill in its background. So most of the HK skyline that we see in photos have this kind of effect one way or another. With most supertalls that are lining along its limited flat land like CBD or metro. The more inner land are starting to have slopes that are much difficult to build the supertalls, so the majority of highrises are situated over them eventhough their heights are considering way shorter to most of its flat land supertalls. However, because of its slope base + the height of its slim highrises, it magically creates the kinda of skyline views that towers are top over the one before it visual effect. But putting it by saying "Does HK cheat?", it is just too much! These are just some of my simple thoughts on why skyline should be classified different when HK's landform is different from the NYC's and Chicago's in a dramatica way! By no mean, HK skyline is still breathtaking with its beautiful night lights!  

Majority of HK's Landform:
-
|
| |-|
- | | |-|
\ | | |
-----| |__
\-----------------


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> you're right, spyguy. that's exactly what I was getting at: visual impact. Nothing statistical. HK's skyline appears taller than it really is because of the variations in elevation from which it rises. That was all I was getting at.


Yep, HK skyline's visual impact are naturally influencing by its slope like elevations when landforms are close to the hill. Even when the obvious shorter highrises looks all over the flat land supertalls below its elevation when majority of them are way taller in heights. Trust me, it is really tuf to build lots of supertalls over the slopes of the HK hill! :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Travis007 said:


> As you can see, the tallest buildings are built on sea level, while the only buildings built on the mountains are mid to high rises around 20 storeys and villas. With Highcliff being probably the only exception although it makes little impact on the skyline.


LOL, no he didn't mean those little buildings on the top of the hills!
What he was talking about was those highrises between the top of hill and its flat land of supertalls. They looks taller then majority of its flat land supertalls because they are all over its up slope land form. But by no mean to take away HK's sheer height of those flat land supertalls, they are well worth of comparing to da NYC and Chicago skyline in the same aspect that they all are situating in da flat landform!


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The residentials along the Midlevels (part way between the harbour and the Peak) are not short either. The biggest one, which I can see in the above photo to the right of the Peak Tower, is Tregunter. It has 66 storeys and stands 220 m.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> If HK were "flattened", would its preceived high rise prominence get flattened, too?


I understand what you're getting at, but I don't agree that if HK were flattened out that it would lose its high-rise 
prominence. As someone else mentioned, nearly all of the really tall buildings in HK's skyline are built at sea level. 
Thus, flattening out HK's topography wouldn't really affect the grandeur of its skyline too significantly. 

Take a look at this pano from hkskyline. You'll notice that most of the buildings constructed on the hillsides are low- and mid-rises.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Once again, lets take a look at this beautiful HK day pano. Its skyline has two major *booster seat areas*, there is one on the right of central HK pano where you see tons of highrise risdentials all over the hillside and the other booster seat area are around the central part of HK pano where supertalls kinda dwarf these hillside highrises but they still give that central area of HK skyline another boost in view. What do u think?


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Seoul skyline with its hill in the backdrop(notice that almost no highrises build on the hillsides and therefore the "booster" effect that you see for HK skyline can't have the same feel here in seoul!)


Did you just quote yourself? :uh:


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

even hk does not need hilly elief to boost its skyline,its still far away from chicago,tons building which are higher than 100m,are located on hk island,even its quantity is more than whole chicago,and more than half manhattan


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

as the original poster, i was never serious about the "cheating" issue. Obviously building where you can is not cheating.

My question was really about how elevation influences HK's skyline. Personally, looking at pictures here and elsewhere I still think it does.

Background buildings on hills appear as part of the mix that would not show up in New York or Chicago. New York and Chicago have skylines of similiar height. NY differentiates itself with the sheer bulk of the Manhattan skyline. HK seems to offer similiar bulk, but I still have to wonder if that would be there if the city rose from a flat base.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> as the original poster, i was never serious about the "cheating" issue. Obviously building where you can is not cheating.
> 
> My question was really about how elevation influences HK's skyline. Personally, looking at pictures here and elsewhere I still think it does.
> 
> Background buildings on hills appear as part of the mix that would not show up in New York or Chicago. New York and Chicago have skylines of similiar height. NY differentiates itself with the sheer bulk of the Manhattan skyline. HK seems to offer similiar bulk, but I still have to wonder if that would be there if the city rose from a flat base.


You are not alone~!  
Just look over the thread,you will see me chat about HK's booster seat elevation for those highrises that DEFINITELY add extra height on their overall skyline! 

As far as the flat landforms for all big 3s go, if HK happen to be as flat as Chicago and NYC, HK would not have these skyscrapers today and not to mention its extra boosters seat effect! But out of geographical importance, HK has to be in that hilly landforms so certainly makes skyline enthusist like us wonder how are we going to fairly look at the REAL skyline without those extra boost on the elevations! :cheers:


----------



## RFonline (Jul 26, 2005)

Does hong kong cheat?It's another joke








d美國佬簡直未見過世面


----------



## sylodon (Sep 5, 2004)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Seoul skyline with its hill in the backdrop(notice that almost no highrises build on the hillsides and therefore the "booster" effect that you see for HK skyline can't have the same feel here in seoul!) :


Seoul does have many mid-rise apartments and houses built on mountain slopes on the northern side near the Myungdong CBD area:









Seoul has three CBDs, which are Myungdong, Yoeido and Samsungdong/Teheranro. The pic you showed us is a residential district in the south-west of Seoul.



> Yep, seoul happen to manage very well on restricting their highrises building all over its hillside landforms! so almost all their highrises are build on nearly flat landform and thus the "booster" view effect isn't as obvious as HK. BTW, Seoul has more flat landform than HK and that should be easier to understand. Oh, SF is another US city that has the similar type of landform without the hill in its backdrop! ENJOY


Seoul's height restrictions are imposed by the ROK Air Force for defence purposes.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

cydevil said:


> Seoul does have many mid-rise apartments and houses built on mountain slopes on the northern side near the Myungdong CBD area:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I know! That's why I said Seoul also have a bit of booster effect in its skyline, but just isn't as dramatic as HK skyline, because Seoul has more flat open landform than HK!


----------



## RFonline (Jul 26, 2005)

tko(small town that i live),hk
super high residential buildings(4x-6x floors)


----------



## RFonline (Jul 26, 2005)

Go to HK and you'll realize how crazy it is


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

^^^
Some good pics of HK highrises.

I already know the craziness of HK, these isn't new to me, what we are talking about here, is that there are a lot of highrises or midrises built on the hillside and add some extra height to its skyline. It is just an observation from an skyline enthuist view. If HK skyline is totally on the flat landform, we wouldn't have this discuss, DO WE?  Now think it over!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Do I need to remind you to go to Chicago and see how flat it is!!  
Trust me, chicago skyline has no extras boost like those HK highrises on hillside that make HK skyline looks higher!. What you see to the top of chicago skyline is their true skyscraper height, since they are all on one flat elevation landform. Go visit and you will know the difference!~


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Whats with that last pic? lol..


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

in fact no hk people care about skyline honesty
i have many hk friends,relative,and always live in hk(3-5months a year)

and chicago beats hk skyline cause its flat land,ok??happy? 

hk people shock when they see a place that contain many low rise and mid rise(lower than 20floors),while american people shock with a place that contain high rise(higher than 30floors).thats why hk is true skyscraper city,

and the photo above is not crazyness of hk,its the majority way of life,not a way of life in chicago


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Again, look at this higher HK skyline with about 50% of its height are boosted by those hillside slim highrises. Do I need to say more, see it to believe it!


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

thats why i said chicago skyline is always better than hkskyline
and you are very care about skyline,man

have you said hk is not skyline,cos it has mountain in back ?why you sadi mountain make hk skyline higher?where is hk skyline? :eek2:

*some people seems that they can not accept the fact that chicago is no longer skyscraper capital for many years ago,while hk got this title,even they might jealousy of how great of hk is,and then said hk got no skyline and hk skyline is heighted by mountain and nothing greatness,ansd what un organized,to maintain chicago position,but the world is changing*


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

shibuya_suki said:


> thats why i said chicago skyline is always better than hkskyline
> and you are very care about skyline,man
> 
> have you said hk is not skyline,cos it has mountain in back ?why you sadi mountain make hk skyline higher?where is hk skyline? :eek2:
> ...


HK does have a great skyline. Just so happen that it blends in with its mountain and most of its highrises on its hillside, so to *clearly* see the overall HK skyline height wouldn't be an easy task. and opposed to that, chicago skyline height is way easier to pick out the overall height of the skyline caz it is complete on a flat land, no extra elevation in its skyline to boost certain part of it!


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

To be fair, I don't think the HK skyline is all that in the day - it's great, but the likes of Chicago do more for me during the day.

At dawn/dusk/night-time though....it's a different story altogether.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> To be fair, I don't think the HK skyline is all that in the day - it's great, but the likes of Chicago do more for me during the day.
> 
> At dawn/dusk/night-time though....it's a different story altogether.


That I have the same view as your! :cheers:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Even if HK's skyscrapers are laid out on flat land, the effect is still there, since there are several 300m + giants and they're all on flat land near sea level anyway, so the difference will be minimal. The towers along Midlevels are not short (many 30+ storey towers) so they will still be visible when put at sea level.

I doubt the skyline will suddenly shrink when they are put on the same elevation. In fact, the residentials form a background, not the focus of HK's dynamic skyline.


----------

