# what makes a city great ??



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

The remnants of colonial architecture are very limited and the few buildings that have been left standing have little artistic value. There is more to culture than making movies. The music scene is very poor compared to other cities in Asia, very MOR. There are hardly any museums worth a visit. The sevens happens one weekend per year and is more a carnival than a sporting event. Overall there is no world class sports. There are no tournaments of relevance compared to other cities in Asia. Don't get me wrong it's a great city but missing too many ingredients to be a world class city.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

This thread could be interesting if it sticks to abstract discussion of the elements of what makes a city great. If it descends to regular old City vs City nonsense it will be locked..


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

Ribarca said:


> The remnants of colonial architecture are very limited and the few buildings that have been left standing have little artistic value. There is more to culture than making movies. The music scene is very poor compared to other cities in Asia, very MOR. There are hardly any museums worth a visit. The sevens happens one weekend per year and is more a carnival than a sporting event. Overall there is no world class sports. There are no tournaments of relevance compared to other cities in Asia. Don't get me wrong it's a great city but missing too many ingredients to be a world class city.


I still disagree. Flagstaff House (now housing the Tea Museum) is not of "little artistic value". It's one of the purest and most perfect examples of the colonial style anywhere in Asia:










I also rate the Central Police Station, Murray House, the Hong Kong Observatory, the old Supreme Court (now LegCo Building), the grand neo-gothic Hong Kong University main building, the former Marine Police Headquarters Building, the lower (old) part of the Peninsula Hotel, and the grand colonial mansion on Castle Street that is now the Sun Yat Sen Museum. I admit that this is just a tiny part of Hong Kong's overall building stock, and much of the rest is dross, but when combined with the magnificent skyscrapers, superb airport, etc, I think Hong Kong does fairly well for architecture.

You say the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens only lasts three days, but the Monaco Grand Prix, Indy 500, or Le Mans 24 hrs race only last a weekend too, yet are the most prestigious races in the world. The world's most famous horse races last just a few hours. Hong Kong Sevens is the most prestigious event in its circuit and I personally rate rugby sevens as one of the most fast-moving and exciting of spectator sports. I suspect, as a Barcelona native, you are comparing Hong Kong with your home city, and asking where is the equivalent of Barcelona football club? Now it's true that Hong Kong doesn't have an equivalent. However it really depends on your sport. What if your sport was kung fu, for instance? I think then Barcelona would struggle to compete with Hong Kong. And, for a city at least, Hong Kong's offering of outdoor sports such as hiking, rock climbing, water skiing, etc is hard to beat. I certainly can't find those choices here in London despite my city being in most other ways one of the premier sports cities in the world.

And sure there's more to culture than film. I am not pretending that Hong Kong is a cultural heavyweight to rival London, Paris, or New York. I also agree about the museums. However it can claim to be the Hollywood of the Chinese speaking world. The film and pop music industry are based in Hong Kong and most of the Chinese superstars live there. Off the top of my head I cannot name any Chinese male film or pop stars who are not from Hong Kong (I'm thinking Andy Lau, Tony Leung (both of them), Edison Chan, Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat, Leslie Cheung etc). Hong Kong also has some excellent directors like Andy Lau (again) and Wong Kar-wai. Female stars include Faye Wong, Maggie Cheung, and Carina Lau. Zhang Ziyi got Hong Kong citizenship, and Gong Li is seen at all the parties and got married there. Have you seen the _Infernal Affairs_ trilogy? They are far superior to Hollywood's knockoff _The Departed_ which won the 2006 _Best Film_ Oscar. I really rate Wong Kar-wai's _2046_ too. Those are Honkers films of the very best quality. Hong Kong cinema has certainly moved far beyond trashy kung fu films and I think credit is due.


----------



## HK999 (Jul 17, 2009)

Langur said:


> I only half agree with that. Skyscrapers are part of architecture after all, and Hong Kong has the best collection of skyscrapers outside the US, and probably the best collection of contemporary skyscrapers anywhere. Though few and far between, there are some lovely colonial buildings scattered around too, and even some of the 1930s blocks have some nice art deco features. Hong Kong is not without culture either. It is probably the most important centre of pop music and film making in E/SE Asia. It is the Hollywood of the Far East. Some of those films are trashy (kung fu films, etc) but some have been absolutely superb - world class by any standards. And you say no sports, but what about the wonderful Hong Kong Sevens tournament? It's the premier tournament on the Sevens World Series in rugby union. Honkers ain't bad for equestrian events and horse racing too.


thx for clarification. maybe i was a bit arrogant (intentionally) but i think i made my point.  of course there are other great cities in the world that can compete with HK.


----------



## Langur (Jan 3, 2008)

chinarulez said:


> thx for clarification. maybe i was a bit arrogant (intentionally) but i think i made my point.  of course there are other great cities in the world that can compete with HK.


I think Ribarca has a point but he goes too far with it. Hong Kong does have weaknesses and gaps in its offering, but saying that it has no culture, poor architecture, etc is going too far imo.


Taller said:


> This thread could be interesting if it sticks to abstract discussion of the elements of what makes a city great. If it descends to regular old City vs City nonsense it will be locked..


You're right. My apologies for debating Hong Kong with Ribarca. I think it's a combination of everything that goes into making a great city, and the greatest cities have all of it: size and status, economy, architecture, public spaces, history, cultural life/arts scene, music, shopping, bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels, sports, internationalism, sophisticated population, etc etc.


----------



## timo (Oct 6, 2004)

Taller said:


> This thread could be interesting if it sticks to abstract discussion of the elements of what makes a city great. If it descends to regular old City vs City nonsense it will be locked..


shhh


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Langur said:


> I think Ribarca has a point but he goes too far with it. Hong Kong does have weaknesses and gaps in its offering, but saying that it has no culture, poor architecture, etc is going too far imo.You're right. My apologies for debating Hong Kong with Ribarca. I think it's a combination of everything that goes into making a great city, and the greatest cities have all of it: size and status, economy, architecture, public spaces, history, cultural life/arts scene, music, shopping, bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels, sports, internationalism, sophisticated population, etc etc.


I didn't want to make it into a city bashing contest either. Even when it's my own home town. I'm from Holland by the way. Half Dutch half Catalan. HK is a fantastic city. As a young city it's still missing some ingredients but it's on its way to greatness.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

timo said:


> shhh


Just trying to keep it from turning into a City vs City thread.


----------



## purenyork123 (May 22, 2009)

LIVABILITY, SAFETY, MASS TRANSIT AND MORE IMPORTANT CULTURE.
I mean no offense but i went to copenhagen and it was so whack and copenhagen has everything but culture like most n. european cities. I even know travels who went there and said the same thing.

SHANGHAI, NYC, MIAMI, LA, ATHENS, ROME, MADRID, PARIS ANY DAY...but i love NYC


----------



## doogerz (May 6, 2003)

A strong relationship between the natural environment and the urban landscape makes for a great city to me. 

On a general sense, I think the great cities of the world have a rich history and a wealth of culture.


----------



## Urban Spurt (Sep 3, 2008)

chinarulez said:


> big (hong kong), safe (hong kong), architecture (hong kong), rich (hong kong), skyscrapers (hong kong), air (hong kong), mass transit (hong kong), low unemployment (hong kong), culture (hong kong), street life (hong kong), independent (hong kong), events (hong kong), ... guess where i live? :lol:


You've just described central HK. Take that set of criteria and apply it to the rest, particularly Kowloon.


----------



## Urban Spurt (Sep 3, 2008)

purenyork123 said:


> LIVABILITY, SAFETY, MASS TRANSIT AND MORE IMPORTANT CULTURE.
> I mean no offense but i went to copenhagen and it was so whack and copenhagen has everything but culture like most n. european cities. I even know travels who went there and said the same thing.


I was in Copenhagen in May. It was one of the most oppressive and right-wing socialist countries I've ever visited. Very inconvenient place.


----------



## Urban Spurt (Sep 3, 2008)

Boston, Malmo in Sweden and the centre of Krakow in Poland get my vote. 

My criteria for cities would be (in no particular order):

space
convenience
clean
lack of crowding
high levels of amenity
unique and distinctive character/sense of place
friendly and warm communities


----------



## purenyork123 (May 22, 2009)

Urban Spurt said:


> I was in Copenhagen in May. It was one of the most oppressive and right-wing socialist countries I've ever visited. Very inconvenient place.


i know, they all seem bitter and sad and i dont know why. Its like they are tired of living in a place where everything is just so perfect lol...trimmed grass, no litter, clean, environmently friendly, safe...but cultureless. 

I would never go to n. europe for a vacation and if i would it would only b london.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

It differs alot. There's no final answer. 

My favourite city in the world is Miami, since it has great architecture, great climate and a nice vibe to it. 
But I would never dream of claiming it to be more beautiful than Verona or Venice. 

And Monaco is another great place, because of it's special atmosphere. 

So there is no good answer really. 
But my favourite big city is Miami, FL.


----------



## steppenwolf (Oct 18, 2002)

Excellent topic!

Naturally this forum is biased towards skyscraper-led visual impact often from afar, but all the great cities Ive been to have the same things in common - simialrly all the worst cities Ive been to have the same things in common (In my opinion as a western/pedestrian/on a moderate western income)

*GREAT CITIES*:

- *Human scale* - the streets are walkable, have lots of activity at ground level, few gaps in the built environment for things like surface car parks, and few supermassive buildings. This sort of city includes New York, London, Copenhagen, Paris, San Francisco, maybe Tokyo. The opposite is Dubai, Las Vegas, LA

*- Some degree of government control over development quality* - Most of the most enjoyable cities have strong plannign and architectural control which insists that new developments contribute to the quality of the city. Architecture must be of a high standard and new buildings must do more than make a quick buck for developers. These sort of cities include most European ones, New York, San Fran, Vancouver, Montreal, Edinburgh, London.... The opposite - Dubai, Phoenix? 

*Respect for heritage* Older buildings often give a city its distinctive character that distinguishes it from other cities. Newer buildings are often very international and not place specific. Old buildings make people feel secure and give continuity to peoples lives. I think theyre a major part of wellbeing and happiness. Good examples - New York, Quebec City, Edinburgh, Paris,

*Good public transport* - Its important to be able to get around cheaply, quickly and safely without having to drive. Awful examples - Dubai, Los Angeles

*Density* Dense cities are more energetic, lively, sustainable, walkable and urban. Theyre easy to get around and they give a real urban experience. Density isnt about height, but intensity of buildings and uses. the opposite is a sprawling city with car parks and offices in downtown, endless suburbia thats only accessible by car, and out of town malls. Dense cities include Milan, Paris, New York. Ones that sprawl include LA, Aukland, Sydney.

*Adaptability and Dynamism* Cities need to be able to accommodate newness to remain vibrant. Its great to be well preserved and beautiful but that can lead to a stale decline into being a theme park or tourist attraction. - Good versatile cities that can accommodate change while retaining their identity and heritage include NY, London, Tokyo, Berlin etc. Ones that are resistant to change include Paris and Venice - Paris is losing its urban thrill and becoming a museum in places, Venice now, is a museum.


----------



## Ni3lS (Jun 29, 2007)

Well urban planned and a good working infrastructure are the basic needs for a great city.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

So, is Los Angeles a great city? Definitions provided by forumers say 'no'.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Higher quality of life than HK 'yes'. ^^


goschio said:


> Low crime, low unemployment, clean air and very high standard of living.


Then San Diego, California qualify


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Why does it have a higher quality of life than Hong Kong?

And what the hell has Hong Kong got to do with a question I asked regarding Los Angeles?


----------

