# Would you wanna live and work in a vertical city?



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Would you wanna live and work in a vertical city? Yes, alot of cities worldwide have their own set of skyscrapers but there are only a few cities that can be considered as vertical. My definition of a vertical city is the majority of the city are high-rises and where people either live or work. Examples of vertical cities would be Hong Kong, New York or Sao Paulo.

There are some who prefer cities where the vertical areas are usually downtown or in a CBD. Cities like Houston or Los Angeles where the majority live in their own private homes with some working on high-rises.

How about you? Do prefer living in a vertical city?


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

If I can easily get down to the ground and get to work easily from there, and if my apartment was spacious.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

NO!!!!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I lived in one all my life! I'm used to it. It doesn't matter if it's vertical or not as long as the city provide good services.

BTW, with all those high-rise condos sprouting, Manila is slowly becoming one


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

As a practical matter, no. I'd never be content to live in a deep tunnel with sunlight only at the far end and a balcony barely large enough to stand on, which is probably what I'd be able to afford in such a city.

Now, if heliostat technology were to dramatically improve to the point where I could have windows overlooking the building's interior with as much sunlight or more as windows facing the outside directly, and have a private terrace from which my cat couldn't escape that's big enough for a couple of trees, a hedge along the walls, and about 300sq feet of space (~15x20)... well, then I might consider it.

Personally, my ideal urban environment would be a townhome in a building the size of a square block with private garages and large storage rooms buried within the interior, and the general appearance of a hill with homes terraced up the side and private yards on the roofs of homes on lower floors. Within easy walking distance there'd be a street with fast food restaurants, convenience stores, etc. for casual shopping when I felt like walking... as well as a subway station that went somewhere useful. But at the same time, the road network would be designed like a good airport parking lot and make it easy and painless to get from my garage to the nearby freeway, and vice-versa, with as little interference from local neighborhood traffic as possible.


----------



## Brett (Oct 26, 2004)

I like being outside, in nature, for as much time as possible. I think I would have difficulty living in a dense city let alone a vertical one.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

WANCH said:


> My definition of a vertical city is the majority of the city are high-rises and where people either live or work. Examples of vertical cities would be Hong Kong, New York or Sao Paulo.


HK is the only vertical city on earth I believe (also according to your definition).

Almost everyone in HK lives in highrise, but that's not the case for NYC and Sao Paulo.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Yes, but only if I had a flying car!


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Call me old fashioned but I like my house and back yard. Trees outside my windows. A little privacy, my garden, birds singing in the trees and accompanying me when I practice the piano. The city and beach are close and convenient. That's good enough for me.


----------



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

No, cause i like the house and yard thing plus i want to be able to drive a car most places and not be stuck in endless traffic or have nowhere to park.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Would you wanna live and work in a vertical city? Yes, alot of cities worldwide have their own set of skyscrapers but there are only a few cities that can be considered as vertical. My definition of a vertical city is the majority of the city are high-rises and where people either live or work. Examples of vertical cities would be Hong Kong, New York or Sao Paulo.
> 
> There are some who prefer cities where the vertical areas are usually downtown or in a CBD. Cities like Houston or Los Angeles where the majority live in their own private homes with some working on high-rises.
> 
> How about you? Do prefer living in a vertical city?



New york is far from being a vertical city, most residents of manhattan don't even live in High-rises but in low and mid-rises, it gets lower in the outer boroughs, and most suburbanites live in single family homes, hardly a vertical city.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

I wouldn't mind living in one. I prefer not having to mox my lawn, rake leaves. shovel snow, etc. Also its much nicer just having to take an elevator to get to groecry stores, subways, and many other amenities. And on top of that, its more efficient.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

> Would you wanna live and work in a vertical city? Yes, alot of cities worldwide have their own set of skyscrapers but there are only a few cities that can be considered as vertical. My definition of a vertical city is the majority of the city are high-rises and where people either live or work. Examples of vertical cities would be Hong Kong, New York or Sao Paulo.
> 
> There are some who prefer cities where the vertical areas are usually downtown or in a CBD. Cities like Houston or Los Angeles where the majority live in their own private homes with some working on high-rises.
> 
> How about you? Do prefer living in a vertical city?


But the majority of New York is not made up of high-rises...? :?


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2006)

My goodness! Oh sure, Queens has houses. But come now, Manhattan high rise living is the trend.

Also, look at the high rise developments in the Bronx.

Then consider all the future development.

New York is a vertical city.

Look at the many levels below the street of subway lines.

A vertical city like New York starts below the ground and ends somewhere in the sky.


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

fish said:


> My goodness! Oh sure, Queens has houses. But come now, Manhattan high rise living is the trend.
> 
> Also, look at the high rise developments in the Bronx.
> 
> ...


I agree. I say vertical cities are HK NYC and SP.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

maybe but Im fine in my house. I cant imagine living in a skyscraper and suddenly a earthquake, hmm I would say Nope


----------



## Renkinjutsushi (Dec 4, 2004)

Maybe, depends on how much the rent is and what my job is there, otherwise, im fine living in the immediate outskirts (i.e. Saitama for Tokyo or Jersey City for NYC).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

alex537 said:


> maybe but Im fine in my house. I cant imagine living in a skyscraper and suddenly a earthquake, hmm I would say Nope


Well, it's not the case with HK or NY  And if HK had earthquakes, the skyline would look different from what it is today.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

I live and work in a vertical city (I guess)... I work in a midrise, but only on the 4th floor, and I also live in a highrise, 19th floor.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Well, it's not the case with HK or NY  And if HK had earthquakes, the skyline would look different from what it is today.


Well I think maybe is not the case in NY but I preffer to live in my house that in a skyscraper here in San Diego, as you know CA has the largest fault in the world (Andreas Fault)


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2006)

I'll say this.
If I hit the lottery (and I mean big), you'll see me moving to one of those new sky towers being built in Manhattan.

In other words, if I had the money, I'd do it!


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2006)

I'd prefer to live in a semi-vertical city with predominately low-to-mid-rises walkups.


----------



## Jamie06 (Dec 3, 2005)

jzt83 said:


> I'd prefer to live in a semi-vertical city with predominately low-to-mid-rises walkups.



I have made a plan of a future skyscraper that i would like to have built in Newcastle Upon Tyne it looks really cool


----------



## Jamie06 (Dec 3, 2005)

fish said:


> I'll say this.
> If I hit the lottery (and I mean big), you'll see me moving to one of those new sky towers being built in Manhattan.
> 
> In other words, if I had the money, I'd do it!



I would probably also do that. I would love to live in a penthose at the top of a skyscraper.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Jamie06 said:


> I would probably also do that. I would love to live in a penthose at the top of a skyscraper.


How about a penthouse in either Highcliff or Summit in HK


----------



## nacirema dream (Oct 2, 2005)

if u consider NY a vertical city i would like to live in one. probably in vancouver (has more highrises per captia than any other city in NA)


----------



## rxpilot (Feb 21, 2006)

I would much rather live and work in somewhere like Silicon Valley. Virtually all the office space is on ground/second floors, with expansive views of foothills. There are open swimming pools, large gyms, and rolling green hills in virtually every high-tech companies' complex.The skies aren't clogged with steel and concrete, unlike HK or NY. While I admire the amount vertical rise in cities like HK or NY, I would absolutely prefer a Silicon Valley-type workplace. 
I think it's healthier too...


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

My idea of a vertical city is one like this, Norman Foster's 2755' Millennium Tower proposed for Tokyo harbour:










The idea is that people effectively live their lives in the tower, commuting to work in its lifts. Foster said that nobody can afford to build such towers now but the day will come when people will not be able to afford to not build them.

All our present day cities are experienced from ground level, however tall their greatest buildings are. Vertical cities are something for the future.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

If the services were right.
Preferrably a penthouse.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I'm a big fan of townhouses.  

But yes, I'd love a nice condo in a beautiful high-rise.


----------



## kostya (Apr 13, 2004)

I'd like to work in a vertical city for some years, but not for my whole life, i prefer to have a private house with a garden and stuff like that and driving to city centre for work.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

lotrfan55345 said:


> If the services were right.
> Preferrably a penthouse.


How about a penthouse in The Highcliff


----------



## Valeroso (Sep 19, 2004)

svs said:


> Call me old fashioned but I like my house and back yard. Trees outside my windows. A little privacy, my garden, birds singing in the trees and accompanying me when I practice the piano. The city and beach are close and convenient. That's good enough for me.


I 100% agree here. I love living in a house, and having a front and backyard also with a nice garden, blended in with trees and nature, animals, parks nearby and so forth. These residential areas are so much more peaceful and family friendly also. If I had kids, then I'd prefer them to go out and play in the backyard, as opposed to play on a verandah with noise in the background as I'd imagine some dense place would be like. I believe space is a very important thing to have. I have a European friend who hates living in an apartment and would prefer having more space. I would love to WORK in a vertical area though, much like Sydney's CBD, which fortunately blends in tall buildings, with parks and nice old buildings also.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

What do you mean by a vertical city? One of those huge japanese visions or just say, living on the 40th floor of a skyscraper. If it's to live in a highrise I'd love to.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

The biggest problem with vertical transportation in really tall buildings is that it basically sucks because it's based on travel models that everyone knows are patently false and absurd, but everyone pretends to accept because people who live and work in tall buildings tend to reject alternatives that depart from the "straight up and down in a shaft" norm.

Otis came up with a brilliant system about 10 years or so ago that lets multiple elevators share shafts. Basically, you have an "up" shaft, a "down" shaft, and two "parking/passing" shafts. An elevator gets boarded on some floor, then moves horizontally to the up or down shaft, grabs on to the cables straddling its sides (up cables always moving up, down cables always moving down), then lets go and glides into an available parking/passing shaft on the desired floor for passengers to exit and enter. Apparently, they talked a 'scraper in Tokyo into using their system. Unfortunately, the building's users hated it.

I don't mean, "people were startled", or "people complained". Literally, people refused to use the horizontally-travelling elevators, and would willingly wait an hour or more to squeeze into one of the building's few conventional elevators.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. The overwhelming majority of people who passionately hated it and refused to use them were in their 50s, or older. Unfortunately, most senior executives at corporations fall into that particular cohort. They screamed and yelled and threw their power around, until the building's owners relented and replaced the horizontally-travelling elevators with conventional ones. Unfortunately, everyone who considers going with horizontal elevators now looks back at that incident, and decides against them.

Others have tried experimenting with computer-scheduled trip scheduling. Instead of just hitting the "up" or "down" button, you'd enter the floor and number of passengers, and the computer would decide which cab would get you there the fastest with the least inconvenience for others. Unfortunately, the same elderly-but-powerful group hated it because they thought it was too complicated, and younger riders abused it by inflating the number of passengers supposedly going to the floor.

The sad fact is, average people tend to get really, REALLY bent out of shape and upset whenever elevators deviate even slightly from the conventional norm... even when deviating can mean the difference between a 40 second hop and a 14-minute ordeal.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

WANCH said:


> How about a penthouse in The Highcliff


Prefer the Arch...just for the view.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> Prefer the Arch...just for the view.


The Arch does have some really nice views. I would mind living there or any vertical city that offers a spectacular view.


----------



## AG (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm fine with vertical living. As long as there's a decent number of parks around and good services. The lack of urban parks in Hong Kong is a bit of a downside, although locals may not agree. I had to deal with Hong Kong living for a few months a few years ago and I loved it.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

The congestions wouldnt be too good would it?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

AG said:


> I'm fine with vertical living. As long as there's a decent number of parks around and good services. The lack of urban parks in Hong Kong is a bit of a downside, although locals may not agree. I had to deal with Hong Kong living for a few months a few years ago and I loved it.


Actually HK's got some nice urban parks and even country parks. You got Victoria Park, Hong Kong Park, The Zoological and Botanical Gardens, Kowloon Park and more. 

And there are alot of country parks especially in The New Territories.


----------

