# Ultra-Density: Heaven or Hell?



## Daniel_Portugal (Sep 24, 2005)

hell


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

As much as I like cityscapes, too much density is just too much for it.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Visually Ultra-density pics are usually stunning! I like them.


----------



## deej (Jan 1, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> I would say hell if I have to live in one of those commie boxes!:runaway:


Hmm... are you implying that the world's second free-est economy is communist...? 

I agree that block after block of uninspired cookie-cutter high-rises doesn't look very pretty (try going to Whampoa Gardens in HK's Hunghom district -- if I lived there, I don't think I'd ever be able to find my flat as all the buildings are the same!). But most of these newer developments (Kowloon Walled City excluded) have extensive amenities, including shops, restaurants, clubhouse and swimming pool. I certainly would prefer to live in one of those newer 'commie blocks' where everything is in walking distance, it takes me 10 minutes by underground to work, and then I can come back and go to the gym or have a swim -- than to spend two hours a day stuck in traffic to and from work. 

My conclusion -- ultra density -- if done well (note the caveat) is definitely more Heaven than Hell. Of course, if it's done poorly....


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

deej said:


> Hmm... are you implying that the world's second free-est economy is communist...?
> 
> I agree that block after block of uninspired cookie-cutter high-rises doesn't look very pretty (try going to Whampoa Gardens in HK's Hunghom district -- if I lived there, I don't think I'd ever be able to find my flat as all the buildings are the same!). But most of these newer developments (Kowloon Walled City excluded) have extensive amenities, including shops, restaurants, clubhouse and swimming pool. I certainly would prefer to live in one of those newer 'commie blocks' where everything is in walking distance, it takes me 10 minutes by underground to work, and then I can come back and go to the gym or have a swim -- than to spend two hours a day stuck in traffic to and from work.
> 
> My conclusion -- ultra density -- if done well (note the caveat) is definitely more Heaven than Hell. Of course, if it's done poorly....


No, I mean piles and piles big boxes laying on top of each other...lol! 
:scouserd:
But I agree with you tho, if done right, I might re-think about the concept of ultra density...for now...it is hell to me :runaway:


----------



## Mastodon Goard (Dec 1, 2005)

TalB said:


> As much as I like cityscapes, too much density is just too much for it.


Hey, TalB:

It seems that they really miss you over at SSP:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=111271


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

The denisty found in places like Manhattan, Tokyo, or Barcelona is just perfect. while much of what I've seen of Hong Kong looks great as well (like Mong Kok or Central), these apartment blocks as seen in the first post are just too much.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Hey I grew up in ultra density and I love it


----------



## MexAmericanMoose (Nov 19, 2005)

that would be utter hell.....i would take my suburban home over those commie boxes any day


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

It depends really... on the location and the building. Ultra density can work or it can fail. 

The vast majority of HK's buildings are absolute heaven. Mostly clean, well kept interiors. 
3 minute walk to tram with 90 second frequency. 5 minute walk to the subway. A breathtaking harbour view or city view and excellent amenities. Sometimes I think people judge living conditions based solely on the exterior appearance of a building.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Skybean said:


> It depends really... on the location and the building. Ultra density can work or it can fail.
> 
> The vast majority of HK's buildings are absolute heaven. Mostly clean, well kept interiors.
> 3 minute walk to tram with 90 second frequency. 5 minute walk to the subway. A breathtaking harbour view or city view and excellent amenitities. Sometimes I think people judge living conditions based solely on the exterior appearance of a building.


True, but when one limited building space trying to cram as much populations like those commie boxes with ultra density intention, than it just not heaven to me, but utter hellish, but with extra transportation accessibility and quality outdoor space, that might oversadow the living condition!


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hell...I would not like these...

I'm not a fan of sprawled out houses either...I like the density of the neighbourhoods of large cites like New York or Chicago and their inner suburbs more.


----------



## Leeigh (Nov 8, 2003)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> I would say hell if I have to live in one of those commie boxes!:runaway:


I hear yah bro...I just don't understand the hoopla over these ghastly living quarters...even if public transportations are great, excellent or whatever...I would'nt want to live in these high rises....HORRIBLE....forget urban setting, metropolis, biggets city in the world...bla bla...but IF you have to live in these tiny little units in those humungous buildings....I feel you! ugh :runaway:


----------



## Leeigh (Nov 8, 2003)

WANCH said:


> Hey I grew up in ultra density and I love it


thought you're 'stuck in Manila'??? part time living in HK don't count bro...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Leeigh said:


> thought you're 'stuck in Manila'??? part time living in HK don't count bro...


No! I'm only here in Manila for a year that it. But I do make frequent trip to HK once every two months


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

Why be dense when there's abundant land everywhere? Ultra density is hell, I hate that because it feels very suffocating.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

I think the best is moderate density, such as what we have in Paris, with the occasional residential high rise districts, and single-family homes neighborhoods.


----------



## Mastodon Goard (Dec 1, 2005)




----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

The difference living on a 50th or 60th tall building is you have more that 200 families share a pool, a gym, culbhouse, party room, day-care, playhouse, library, fancy lobby and even a doorman and housekeeper, it is call "money power" when you have 200 family put all the money together, you have more money to do more stuff, you can build things super nice and keep it nice.

Here is few Hong Kong clubhouse's weblink and picture:
Noble Hill http://www.noblehill.com.hk/eng/04/4.4.1.html#


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

Link for Don-Point club house: http://www.nwd.com.hk/build/bon-point/club01.html 

Villa Carlton's club house: http://www.nwd.com.hk/build/carlton.asp#4 

The Carbonell's club house: http://www.thecarbonell.com/eng/building/index.html

Ocean Shores' club house: http://www.oceanshores.com.hk/phase3/e_con/con_3_4.html

And I LOVE the Vision City's club house!!! http://www.visioncity.com.hk/ 
(just click the World Club and click on World Club's Floor Plan on the picture.)



hehe let's open a thread, I want to see more club house!!


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> The only public transportation accessible to Red Hill is bus that runs through Chai Wan. But the majority of Red Hill's residents own a car.
> 
> 
> 
> That is if you can afford it


While I won't be surprised if the people living around Repulse Bay and Deep Water Bay also own cars (if they can pay a few million to live there, a car shouldn't be a problem), those areas are still accessible by a frequent bus service to Central. Red Hill doesn't have that. It's quite remote in fact.


----------



## salvius (Aug 4, 2004)

While in theory I like high densities, I'm not sure I'd want to live in such places for a number of reasons. 

I tend to generally prefer medium densities, which IMO are more livable. I'm also a fan of the old streetcar suburbs; although their densities are relatively low, the sense of community in such places is often strikingly high.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> While I won't be surprised if the people living around Repulse Bay and Deep Water Bay also own cars (if they can pay a few million to live there, a car shouldn't be a problem), those areas are still accessible by a frequent bus service to Central. Red Hill doesn't have that. It's quite remote in fact.


But I think Redhill Peninsula has a shuttle service to Central or to Chai Wan. There are buses that runs near Redhill both catering to it's residents and students studying in HKIS but I don't think they're as frequent as the former said areas.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> But I think Redhill Peninsula has a shuttle service to Central or to Chai Wan. There are buses that runs near Redhill both catering to it's residents and students studying in HKIS but I don't think they're as frequent as the former said areas.


Red Hill is also a lot further from Central. It's closer to Chai Wan. I remember seeing it from across the water on my way to Shek O.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Red Hill is also a lot further from Central. It's closer to Chai Wan. I remember seeing it from across the water on my way to Shek O.


Most like the shuttle service will be from Red Hill to Chai Wan and then it's residents can just take either the bus or MTR to Central.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> Most like the shuttle service will be from Red Hill to Chai Wan and then it's residents can just take either the bus or MTR to Central.


That's a long commute!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> That's a long commute!


I don't think so. I have friends who studied in HKIS which is nearby Redhill and they live in Kowloon Tong. But that's because they have school bus services.


----------



## Marek_VF (Aug 6, 2006)

Island Harbourview is a deluxe estate situated in Olympian City Station in Kowloon, Residents enjoy the magnificent panoramic views of Central and Victorial Harbour.

At first, to be sorry about the density and about the number of people living in each buliding. I would rather blow muself up than live in such thing!! :sleepy: It can be even extra-cool-mega-deluxe estate, but with no trees, with huge sh|t-l00king buliding it is not a good place to live imho, of course. My city is inhabited by 700000 people and I think it's just enough...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> I don't think so. I have friends who studied in HKIS which is nearby Redhill and they live in Kowloon Tong. But that's because they have school bus services.


Repulse Bay is only 20 minutes from Central. From Red Hill, it will take at least double that.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

Venim Fireblade said:


> Island Harbourview is a deluxe estate situated in Olympian City Station in Kowloon, Residents enjoy the magnificent panoramic views of Central and Victorial Harbour.
> 
> At first, to be sorry about the density and about the number of people living in each buliding. I would rather blow muself up than live in such thing!! :sleepy: It can be even extra-cool-mega-deluxe estate, but with no trees, with huge sh|t-l00king buliding it is not a good place to live imho, of course. My city is inhabited by 700000 people and I think it's just enough...


come on, most hong kong people like to live in somewhere close to the cbd as we are always believe "time is money"

living in such buildings are not that sorry actually, imagine that u can go out to eat at mid-night like 2am where is just 5 mins walking from ur buildings

and just 30mins to those natural parks

in fact, there is many indepentent "houses" in hong kong, mostly located in sai kung where is known as the backyard of hong kong, the price is not expensive but most hong kong still like to live in those "deluxe estate", we like convinent so much!

such buildings are quite livable in the eyes of hong kong people

here are some pics of island harborview and other similar estate in hong kong


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

silly thing said:


> come on, most hong kong people like to live in somewhere close to the cbd as we are always believe "time is money"
> 
> living in such buildings are not that sorry actually, imagine that u can go out to eat at mid-night like 2am where is just 5 mins walking from ur buildings
> 
> ...


Convenience does matter thats why most flats in Mid-Levels for example are pretty expensive.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Rapid said:


> I dont think Pyongyang could be considered dense. What pictures/articles did you base your statement on? I'm very interested to see.
> 
> This may look moderatly dense...
> 
> ...



May not look it because of the lack of pedestrian, vehicle traffic, or general vitality. But according the Demographia, Pyongyang is the the world's 23rd most densely populated urbanized area, higher than Seoul-Inchon, which ranks 53rd.

Would imagine that the living conditons in PY are very cramped!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

bayviews said:


> May not look it because of the lack of pedestrian, vehicle traffic, or general vitality. But according the Demographia, Pyongyang is the the world's 23rd most densely populated urbanized area, higher than Seoul-Inchon, which ranks 53rd.
> 
> Would imagine that the living conditons in PY are very cramped!


The thing is if there *are* people living in these tower blocks. Have you seen photos of the insides?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Vancouver* has quite a dense downtown, yet its quality of life is among the very top in the world.


----------



## RiversideGator (Dec 31, 2005)

I dont like sprawl either, but there is bad density too, and this is it. How about better architecture and a mix of styles, for example? This is monotonous crap and quite depressing to my eye.

Now Vancouver and NYC get it right. Density with good design and quality development. That is the key. Piling people into dumps is not so good.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

WANCH said:


> The thing is if there *are* people living in these tower blocks. Have you seen photos of the insides?


Well, Pyongyang, that's one of those cities I've never been to! 
Do know they have at least one totally empty scrapper. Think that slightly leaning hotel that never opened. But unlikely with DKPR economy struggling that they could afford to have many empty buildings. Actually did catch an interesting documentary a couple of years ago about a family living in a PY high-rise, conditions didn't seem bad, aside from that the elevator & electric service was sporadic, but that probably wasnt representative.


----------



## sharpie20 (Nov 5, 2005)

Mastodon Goard those pictures are surreal...

Anyways it depends what city you live in, if all the buildings look identical and stretch down forever then it would seem like a hell, but if you live in an ultra density city with lots of diversity and people with an exciting street life then it's heaven.


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

bayviews said:


> May not look it because of the lack of pedestrian, vehicle traffic, or general vitality. But according the Demographia, Pyongyang is the the world's 23rd most densely populated urbanized area, higher than Seoul-Inchon, which ranks 53rd.
> 
> Would imagine that the living conditons in PY are very cramped!


This is somewhat surprising news for me. There are slums in PY. I bet those raise the density level.


----------



## urbanaturalist (Sep 25, 2005)

The debate is rather moot in the since that ultra density is the only way countries with generously growing populations and much limited land capacity can hope to provide some form of high social and economic standards to its citizens, without turning its farmland and biodiverse regions into "Phoenixes" (I say that with spite). However, I agree that the projects don't have to be monotonous. A lot of those boxy buildings had lots of space, comparatively, for rooftop greenspace. As long as the buildings have green attributes and space for community then ultradensity is damn good thing.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

What in the event of a war or major natural disaster? These ultra dense areas would be a big logistical nightmare and a big juicy open target for the enemy to maximize the damage and casualties.


----------



## Nutterbug (Feb 3, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Pyongyang may look dense because of the no. of commie blocks surrounding the city. Seoul has a similar layout but it's more populated and vibrant than Pyongyang.
> 
> Also, there is no photographic evidence that there are people living in these commieblocks.


Keyword being "living". The street traffic would suggest otherwise.

Question now is, how many rotting corpses do they contain?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Ultra density is gross.


----------



## Leeigh (Nov 8, 2003)

Xäntårx said:


> Visually Ultra-density pics are usually stunning! I like them.


VISUALLY stunning ...you're exactly right, but LIVING in it...don't think so!! I'd go for greens and low rises anytime! :runaway:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> *Vancouver* has quite a dense downtown, yet its quality of life is among the very top in the world.


Yes, it looks quite dense, but it certainly isn't "ultra-dense"!
Ultra-density is for rat pack, while ultra-low density is for elephant pack :jk: 
Anyway, you get the idea, ultra-density is crazy squeez and shallow, I just can't see myself living in cell griting ultra dense commies! So it is hell IMHO!


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

Mastodon Goard said:


> Yes indeed, these are Hong Kong pictures.



In Hong Kong ultra dense complexes can be luxurious. But then it depends on how you define ultra dense - do you mean density on street level, density of tall buildings in clusters, population density or the lack of living space?

By the way, those pics you posted were photoshopped. We don't have 90-storey residential towers... YET.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I love ultra density, but it all boils down to architecture and design. If it's a sea of identical residential towers like in Post #1, I'd take a giant pass. If it's high quality, dense layering of differing architectural styles, it's absolutely wonderful. 

Toronto's CBD at King and Bay is stunning, yet Bay Street a few blocks north is bland and banal. It's all in the execution.

*Wonderful!*








Courtesy of Taller, Better

*A lot to be desired a few blocks north*








Courtesy of Jasonzed


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Ultra density is better of in the city centre. The suburbs and outskirts should be predominantly low-rise just like most major cities around the world.


----------



## ChitownCity (May 11, 2010)

I gotta stick with Heaven all day! I wasn't born for sprawl... feels unnatural....


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Rachmaninov said:


> In Hong Kong ultra dense complexes can be luxurious. But then it depends on how you define ultra dense - do you mean density on street level, density of tall buildings in clusters, population density or the lack of living space?
> 
> By the way, those pics you posted were photoshopped. We don't have 90-storey residential towers... YET.


The maximum height in the average high-rise HK apartment would be *60 stories*. I doubt it will exceed that even in the future.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Like others have said, its heaven if well planned and modern. Or even if its chaotic, if there is a certain amount of grace like in Tokyo or Paris, it works.

But the Kowloon walled city, the slums in India, yeah that's hell.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

zaphod said:


> Like others have said, its heaven if well planned and modern. Or even if its chaotic, if there is a certain amount of grace like in Tokyo or Paris, it works.
> 
> But the Kowloon walled city, the slums in India, yeah that's hell.


It was for KWC. Now its a park.


----------



## Bartje83 (Aug 9, 2008)

HK still has the Chung King Mansions, which seem pretty 'slummy' to me


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Hell: Clausterphobia! 

I don't mind living in apartments, as I have done for a few years. But sometimes I like just to live in a suburban home. Make noise do what ever and not care what time the people upstairs go to bed lol


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Bartje83 said:


> HK still has the Chung King Mansions, which seem pretty 'slummy' to me


It still does but there are plenty of gritty buildings around HK that are as bad as Chung King Mansions. 

In fact Chung King is mini United Nations.


----------



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

Is heaven...

BUT!

The ultra density should be well surrounded of green spaces. I think that density is a solution for landuse control and protection for forestry and agricultural areas.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Ultra-high density: hell on Earth. It facilitates everything, from drug operating business to lack of social control, let alone the need for much larger infrastructure like 10ft. water pipes, huge sewage drains etc.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Incorrect suburbanist (surprise!). From an infrastructure standpoint, density is hugely efficient vs. your beloved sprawl. To say nothing of transportation and use of land. Building materials tend to be most efficient with midrises, but ultra-high density still trumps sprawl in that category too.


----------



## WaterOnMars (Mar 15, 2011)

Hell... but it can be well managed hell, with undeniable benefits  Like saving land and resources and stopping the evil sprawl. :banana: 

While living in a ultra-high-density neighborhood is not for everyone it can be ok for some. I've nothing against building height and social mix and lively areas with high end amenities, major investment in parks, arts, and recreation to compensate for the loss of privacy and personal space.

Those pictures represent very poor examples of ultra-high-density developments. It doesn't need to be like this.

Here's a nicer example of ultra-high-density urban living

http://www.vancouver-real-estate-direct.com/blog/labels/Coal Harbour Real Estate.html


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ If you have many people living in a complex like that, you can't have a quiet park. To have a decent amount of greenery per inhabitant, you would need a giant park you'd have to have internal transportation. Just look at Central Park, where I myself have been: although it is huge, really a large park, it is always filled with people. You can't be anywhere out of sight of everyone else as you'd easily do in a urban park of more moderate density neighborhood. There is people everywhere on the Central Park, weather allowing, and that is utterly annoying - for instance.

Now about Vancouver: Canada and Australia, for God's sake, are among the countries with the lowest population density in the World. They are countries where sprawl and "land protection" should be laughable at, because they have soooo much land to expand anyway. You could fill all Europeans in Ontario and Mantioba alone.


----------



## WaterOnMars (Mar 15, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^
> You could fill all Europeans in Ontario and Manitoba alone.


true enough!

We could fit some in Alberta, too. I'm sending the RSVPs right now


----------

