Sunday, April 22, 2007
what do u think of the gold coast
some people think its tacky some people think its great good surf great scrapers whats your vew on the gold coast a>
The Benelux vs Scandinavia
The Benelux: Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg
population: 27,240,450
area: 74,640 sq km
cities: Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, The Hague and Luxembourg
average GDP per capita: $ 41,666
Scandinavia: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland
population: 24,250,592
area: 1,155,423
cities: Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Copenhagen
average GDO per capita: $33,950
>
population: 27,240,450
area: 74,640 sq km
cities: Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, The Hague and Luxembourg
average GDP per capita: $ 41,666
Scandinavia: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland
population: 24,250,592
area: 1,155,423
cities: Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Copenhagen
average GDO per capita: $33,950
>
Event City - Outdoor Art Events
Providence has had great success with Waterfire, bonfires set in caldrons placed in the waterway around the city, set to music. Boston has it's First Night celebration, which (at one time) was an all night event of outdoor artistic expression, Ice Sculptures, and performances. And Barcelona has the Magic Fountain.
What other type of art events are held in cities around the world? I am not talking about simple concerts or indoor galleries - these are outdoor, unique attractions. And how have these helped - or hindered - the cities identity?
WaterFire in Providence really was a key event in getting Providence recognized as an exciting city. Although it seems to not be as popular as it once was, it still drives much of the summer nightlife in the city. Boston's First Night used to be a great success, getting people out into the city at night, making New Year's much more than a drinking binge. But lately it has lost it's focus, and became a bit stodgy. Now, it seems tha Boston is going back to the Irish Bar scene, and loosing it's artistic edge.>
What other type of art events are held in cities around the world? I am not talking about simple concerts or indoor galleries - these are outdoor, unique attractions. And how have these helped - or hindered - the cities identity?
WaterFire in Providence really was a key event in getting Providence recognized as an exciting city. Although it seems to not be as popular as it once was, it still drives much of the summer nightlife in the city. Boston's First Night used to be a great success, getting people out into the city at night, making New Year's much more than a drinking binge. But lately it has lost it's focus, and became a bit stodgy. Now, it seems tha Boston is going back to the Irish Bar scene, and loosing it's artistic edge.>
The best city for the winter olympics
what city do you consider the most fitting an sufficient for hosting the winter Olympic Games?
I also added in Vancouver in case you think they will be the best yet.>
I also added in Vancouver in case you think they will be the best yet.>
Fastest-Growing U.S. Cities Are Suburban
Fastest-Growing U.S. Cities Are Suburban
Associated Press
June 21, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Elk Grove, Calif., wasn't even incorporated six years ago, and now it's the fastest-growing city in America.
Bigger, older cities are losing ground.
The Sacramento suburb grew by 11.6% last year, to 112,000 people, typifying the nation's appetite for open spaces, affordable homes and suburban living. Once a rural farming community, Elk Grove has given way to sprawling development, fueled by a short commute to Sacramento and local employers such as Apple Computer.
"Ten to 15 years ago is when the housing started coming in. That was followed by the businesses," says Janet Toppenberg, president and CEO of the Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce.
Americans have been moving west and south for decades, and last year was no different. All but three of the 50 fastest-growing cities from 2004 to 2005 were in those regions of the country, with many in California and Florida, according to Census Bureau estimates Wednesday. The estimates were for cities with populations of 100,000 or more.
Elk Grove was followed in the top five by North Las Vegas, Nev.; Port St. Lucie, Fla.; Gilbert, Ariz., and Cape Coral, Fla.
All five are suburban, and all have fewer than 200,000 residents.
"We have a pattern that is consistent across the country," said Hans Johnson, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "Families choose to move to areas where they can buy more housing for less money and often with better schools."
Americans also are moving away from many of the nation's biggest cities though the reasons vary with the cities.
People are following jobs out of struggling Midwestern cities. Others are leaving expensive Northeastern and Western cities, including Boston, in search of more affordable homes. And people are fleeing big cities everywhere in search of better schools.
New York remained the nation's largest city, with 8.1 million people. The city has added 135,000 people since 2000, but it lost 21,500 from 2004 to 2005, more than any other city.
Detroit, with its struggling economy, has lost 65,000 people since 2000, the most of any city. Philadelphia, which has lost about 50,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, has lost 54,000 people during the same period.
San Francisco, with the highest real estate prices in the country, has lost 37,000 people since 2000, according to the Census Bureau. Boston, with similarly high real estate prices, lost 1.5% of its population last year, the Census Bureau figures showed.
The bureau issues annual population estimates based on building permits, housing units and other changes since its 2000 headcount.
States sometimes dispute those estimates based on their own calculations. For example, California officials estimate that San Francisco has grown by 22,000 people since 2000, rather than shrinking. But even if the city did add people, it did so at a much slower rate than cities in the center of the state, said John Malson, a research manager for the state Department of Finance.
"The housing market out here has gone nuts, especially in the coastal areas," Mr. Malson said.
"The Central Valley is still more affordable than the coast," he added. "A lot of people are moving out from the Bay area."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino's office said in a statement the city believes its population was undercounted for several reasons, including housing information that counts only new homes and administrative practices that do not count first-time tax filers. The city did not give its own population estimate.
Most of the big cities that gained population were in the South, according to the Census Bureau.
In overall numbers, Phoenix added the most people -- 44,400 -- from 2004 to 2005, giving it a population of nearly 1.5 million.
New Orleans, an exception in the South, had already lost population before Hurricane Katrina. The city lost about 30,000 people from 2000 to 2005, setting its population at 455,000, the Census Bureau said in an estimate made before the hurricane scattered hundreds of thousands of people.
Local officials estimate that New Orleans has rebounded to about 221,000 people since the storm.
Copyright © 2006 Associated Press>
Associated Press
June 21, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Elk Grove, Calif., wasn't even incorporated six years ago, and now it's the fastest-growing city in America.
Bigger, older cities are losing ground.
The Sacramento suburb grew by 11.6% last year, to 112,000 people, typifying the nation's appetite for open spaces, affordable homes and suburban living. Once a rural farming community, Elk Grove has given way to sprawling development, fueled by a short commute to Sacramento and local employers such as Apple Computer.
"Ten to 15 years ago is when the housing started coming in. That was followed by the businesses," says Janet Toppenberg, president and CEO of the Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce.
Americans have been moving west and south for decades, and last year was no different. All but three of the 50 fastest-growing cities from 2004 to 2005 were in those regions of the country, with many in California and Florida, according to Census Bureau estimates Wednesday. The estimates were for cities with populations of 100,000 or more.
Elk Grove was followed in the top five by North Las Vegas, Nev.; Port St. Lucie, Fla.; Gilbert, Ariz., and Cape Coral, Fla.
All five are suburban, and all have fewer than 200,000 residents.
"We have a pattern that is consistent across the country," said Hans Johnson, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "Families choose to move to areas where they can buy more housing for less money and often with better schools."
Americans also are moving away from many of the nation's biggest cities though the reasons vary with the cities.
People are following jobs out of struggling Midwestern cities. Others are leaving expensive Northeastern and Western cities, including Boston, in search of more affordable homes. And people are fleeing big cities everywhere in search of better schools.
New York remained the nation's largest city, with 8.1 million people. The city has added 135,000 people since 2000, but it lost 21,500 from 2004 to 2005, more than any other city.
Detroit, with its struggling economy, has lost 65,000 people since 2000, the most of any city. Philadelphia, which has lost about 50,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, has lost 54,000 people during the same period.
San Francisco, with the highest real estate prices in the country, has lost 37,000 people since 2000, according to the Census Bureau. Boston, with similarly high real estate prices, lost 1.5% of its population last year, the Census Bureau figures showed.
The bureau issues annual population estimates based on building permits, housing units and other changes since its 2000 headcount.
States sometimes dispute those estimates based on their own calculations. For example, California officials estimate that San Francisco has grown by 22,000 people since 2000, rather than shrinking. But even if the city did add people, it did so at a much slower rate than cities in the center of the state, said John Malson, a research manager for the state Department of Finance.
"The housing market out here has gone nuts, especially in the coastal areas," Mr. Malson said.
"The Central Valley is still more affordable than the coast," he added. "A lot of people are moving out from the Bay area."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino's office said in a statement the city believes its population was undercounted for several reasons, including housing information that counts only new homes and administrative practices that do not count first-time tax filers. The city did not give its own population estimate.
Most of the big cities that gained population were in the South, according to the Census Bureau.
In overall numbers, Phoenix added the most people -- 44,400 -- from 2004 to 2005, giving it a population of nearly 1.5 million.
New Orleans, an exception in the South, had already lost population before Hurricane Katrina. The city lost about 30,000 people from 2000 to 2005, setting its population at 455,000, the Census Bureau said in an estimate made before the hurricane scattered hundreds of thousands of people.
Local officials estimate that New Orleans has rebounded to about 221,000 people since the storm.
Copyright © 2006 Associated Press>
Preference: New Developments or Redevelopments?
Developments and redevelopments are both really important for cities and I am not trying to put one above another.
But in your own PERSONAL preference, which do you prefer and find more interesting or exciting?
Please vote in the poll, describe to us your answer, and even post some photos if you want to use examples.
I look forward to your sharing.>
But in your own PERSONAL preference, which do you prefer and find more interesting or exciting?
Please vote in the poll, describe to us your answer, and even post some photos if you want to use examples.
I look forward to your sharing.>
Which major East Asian city is most European? (SEA included)
Since you guyas have all these which city is most which...Which East Asian is most European not only architecturally, but culturally as well? If you want, post pictures to prove your argument.>
ok... can anybody read this
you may delete this after but... (puts his face in his hands)... Ive had sim city for one and a half years now and im gettingno where somebody help :'( 
>
>
Hong Kong larger than Singapore, Japan and Korea put together??
...Absolutely, when considering foreign direct investment last year. Top 3 were US, UK, and China, with HK climbing up this steep ladder fast...
Hong Kong climbs FDI ladder
Hong Kong ranked seventh in the world in attracting foreign direct investment in 2004, up four notches from a year ago, amid continued robust fund inflows into China, according to a report released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
Vanson Soo
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Hong Kong ranked seventh in the world in attracting foreign direct investment in 2004, up four notches from a year ago, amid continued robust fund inflows into China, according to a report released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
China, which ranked third globally and first in Asia, and Hong Kong together accounted for over two-thirds of FDI inflows in the region last year, it said.
"The flows into Hong Kong are larger than Singapore, Japan and Korea put together," said Mike Rowse, director general of investment promotion at Invest Hong Kong. "Hong Kong is a miracle by itself."
After three years of decline, global flows of FDI rose 2 percent to US$648 billion (HK$5.054 trillion) last year but inflows to developing countries jumped 40 percent to US$233 billion, the second largest on record.
Inflows to Hong Kong, a large part of which tend to be invested in China later, surged 150 percent to US$34 billion last year, and amounted to US$19.8 billion in the first half this year.
China remained the largest FDI recipient among developing countries last year, with US$60.5 billion, and was behind US$96 billion to the United States and US$78 billion to the UK globally.
UNCTAD said the figures for Hong Kong and China are boosted by increased merger and acquisition deals. Cross-border M&A sales in China were the largest in the region in 2004, it said.
The mainland's strong economic growth, an improved policy environment and further opening up of some sectors such as banking and financial services also helped attract FDI, it said.
"Most of the foreign direct investment flows around the world from developed to developing ... It's not just a simple case of rich to poor countries but the search for new opportunities, based on differentials in rates of return," said Richard Wong, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Hong Kong.
Still, Asian economies are also emerging as major sources of FDI as outflows from Asia and Oceania quadrupled to US$69 billion last year, due largely to dramatic growth from Hong Kong and China, according to the UNCTAD report.
>
Hong Kong climbs FDI ladder
Hong Kong ranked seventh in the world in attracting foreign direct investment in 2004, up four notches from a year ago, amid continued robust fund inflows into China, according to a report released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
Vanson Soo
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Hong Kong ranked seventh in the world in attracting foreign direct investment in 2004, up four notches from a year ago, amid continued robust fund inflows into China, according to a report released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
China, which ranked third globally and first in Asia, and Hong Kong together accounted for over two-thirds of FDI inflows in the region last year, it said.
"The flows into Hong Kong are larger than Singapore, Japan and Korea put together," said Mike Rowse, director general of investment promotion at Invest Hong Kong. "Hong Kong is a miracle by itself."
After three years of decline, global flows of FDI rose 2 percent to US$648 billion (HK$5.054 trillion) last year but inflows to developing countries jumped 40 percent to US$233 billion, the second largest on record.
Inflows to Hong Kong, a large part of which tend to be invested in China later, surged 150 percent to US$34 billion last year, and amounted to US$19.8 billion in the first half this year.
China remained the largest FDI recipient among developing countries last year, with US$60.5 billion, and was behind US$96 billion to the United States and US$78 billion to the UK globally.
UNCTAD said the figures for Hong Kong and China are boosted by increased merger and acquisition deals. Cross-border M&A sales in China were the largest in the region in 2004, it said.
The mainland's strong economic growth, an improved policy environment and further opening up of some sectors such as banking and financial services also helped attract FDI, it said.
"Most of the foreign direct investment flows around the world from developed to developing ... It's not just a simple case of rich to poor countries but the search for new opportunities, based on differentials in rates of return," said Richard Wong, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Hong Kong.
Still, Asian economies are also emerging as major sources of FDI as outflows from Asia and Oceania quadrupled to US$69 billion last year, due largely to dramatic growth from Hong Kong and China, according to the UNCTAD report.
>
Best Art Museums
What do you think are the fifteen best art museums (not including natural history, sciene, etc) in the world?
My list is as follows:
1. The Louvre
2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
3. The National Gallery in London
4. The Art Institute of Chicago
5. The National Gallery in Washington, DC
6. The Hermitage
7. The Prado
8. The Museum of Modern Art in NY
9. The Museum Orsay
10.The Reina Sofia in Madrid
11.The Philadelphia Museum of Art
12.The Reijksmuseum
13. The Getty in LA
14. The Gugenheim in NY
15. The Barnes Collection in Philadelphia>
My list is as follows:
1. The Louvre
2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
3. The National Gallery in London
4. The Art Institute of Chicago
5. The National Gallery in Washington, DC
6. The Hermitage
7. The Prado
8. The Museum of Modern Art in NY
9. The Museum Orsay
10.The Reina Sofia in Madrid
11.The Philadelphia Museum of Art
12.The Reijksmuseum
13. The Getty in LA
14. The Gugenheim in NY
15. The Barnes Collection in Philadelphia>
Singapore Olympics 2016
Who would agree that Singapore would be a great host candidate for 2016 games? >
>
Should Boston be included in the Northeast Megalopolis?
Do you think that Boston, as well as Providence, should be included in the Northeastern U.S. megalopolis, a conglomeration of metropolitan areas that have been said to have grown together to the point of interaction and connectivity?
The reason I ask this question is because unlike the spans between Washington and Baltimore, Baltimore and Philadelphia, Philadelphia and New York, the area between Providence and the area just east of New Haven CT is rural, an area about 60-70 miles long. Sure, there's the Groton/Mystic, CT areas, but it is small in the grand scheme of things. One might say that there is a gap between Baltimore and Philadelphia, but I would argue that that gap is much smaller, say only about 30 miles of rural area, enough to still say that it's the megalopolis.
So what do you think?>
The reason I ask this question is because unlike the spans between Washington and Baltimore, Baltimore and Philadelphia, Philadelphia and New York, the area between Providence and the area just east of New Haven CT is rural, an area about 60-70 miles long. Sure, there's the Groton/Mystic, CT areas, but it is small in the grand scheme of things. One might say that there is a gap between Baltimore and Philadelphia, but I would argue that that gap is much smaller, say only about 30 miles of rural area, enough to still say that it's the megalopolis.
So what do you think?>
Shopping districts that primarily cater to urban youth pop culture
Does your city have a shopping district that primarily cater to youths.
It's hard to explain but here's one,
Mong Kok is an example in HK. It's where I buy my action figures, model kits and CDs. In fact alot of shops in Mong Kok are for youths. Most of them sell either toys, figures, popular urban outfits, music and more. Other examples would be Shibuya in Tokyo or Melrose in Los Angeles
Mong Kok
>
It's hard to explain but here's one,
Mong Kok is an example in HK. It's where I buy my action figures, model kits and CDs. In fact alot of shops in Mong Kok are for youths. Most of them sell either toys, figures, popular urban outfits, music and more. Other examples would be Shibuya in Tokyo or Melrose in Los Angeles
Mong Kok
>
Disneyland Korea?...where will the next Disney park be?
Sounds pretty likely. Or as one of the article says, it could be a playing off of Shanghai. I think Seoul as a richer economy per capita would be able to support Disneyland much better.
_____
Disney May Build Park Near Seoul
By Richard Verrier
Times Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the last several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials over a site south of Seoul, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve something more modest than the 310-acre Disneyland opening later this year in Hong Kong. The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in the early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed. Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company had no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China. Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney might be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions from Shanghai. Disney first signed a letter of intent 2 1/2 years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando, Fla.-based theme park consultant Bill Coan.
Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris, which opened in 1992.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The Burbank-based entertainment giant — which has 10 theme parks worldwide — has made international expansion a linchpin of its growth. Over the years, executives have talked about possibly expanding Disney's theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels. Disney will manage the park and control 43% of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost — $314 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm. The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
"I would look at this as a pretty strong market," Stanek said. "Korea has enough population and enough economic wealth to sustain a theme park."
Analysts said one drawback could be tensions caused by instability in neighboring North Korea. In addition, Seoul is not a major draw for international travelers, unlike Paris, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
Beyond that, some analysts said, Disney risks offending its partners in China and in Japan, where it operates two Tokyo parks, by adding another competitor to the region.Disney May Build Park Near Seoul
By Richard Verrier
Times Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the last several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials over a site south of Seoul, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve something more modest than the 310-acre Disneyland opening later this year in Hong Kong. The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in the early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed. Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company had no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China. Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney might be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions from Shanghai. Disney first signed a letter of intent 2 1/2 years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando, Fla.-based theme park consultant Bill Coan.
Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris, which opened in 1992.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The Burbank-based entertainment giant — which has 10 theme parks worldwide — has made international expansion a linchpin of its growth. Over the years, executives have talked about possibly expanding Disney's theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels. Disney will manage the park and control 43% of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost — $314 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm. The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
_____
Disney evaluates S. Korea for park
Sources say company executives have met with government officials about a site near Seoul.
By Richard Verrier
Sentinel Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the past several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials about a site south of Seoul, the South Korean capital, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve a more modest project than the 310-acre site Disneyland is opening later this year in Hong Kong.
The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed.
Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company has no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some longtime industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China.
Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney may be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions for the Shanghai park. Disney first signed a letter of intent two-and-half years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando-based theme-park consultant Bill Coan.
In the early 1990s, Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The entertainment giant -- which has 10 theme parks worldwide -- has made international expansion a linchpin of its future growth. Over the years, Disney officials have talked about possibly expanding its theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels.
Disney will manage the park and control 43 percent of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost -- $315 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm.
The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
"I would look at this as a pretty strong market," Stanek said. "Korea has enough population and enough economic wealth to sustain a theme park."
Analysts said one drawback could be tensions caused by instability in neighboring North Korea. In addition, Seoul is not a major draw for international travelers, unlike France and Hong Kong.
Beyond that, analysts said, Disney risks offending its partners in China and in Japan, where it operates two Tokyo parks, by adding another competitor in the region.>
_____
Disney May Build Park Near Seoul
By Richard Verrier
Times Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the last several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials over a site south of Seoul, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve something more modest than the 310-acre Disneyland opening later this year in Hong Kong. The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in the early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed. Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company had no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China. Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney might be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions from Shanghai. Disney first signed a letter of intent 2 1/2 years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando, Fla.-based theme park consultant Bill Coan.
Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris, which opened in 1992.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The Burbank-based entertainment giant — which has 10 theme parks worldwide — has made international expansion a linchpin of its growth. Over the years, executives have talked about possibly expanding Disney's theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels. Disney will manage the park and control 43% of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost — $314 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm. The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
"I would look at this as a pretty strong market," Stanek said. "Korea has enough population and enough economic wealth to sustain a theme park."
Analysts said one drawback could be tensions caused by instability in neighboring North Korea. In addition, Seoul is not a major draw for international travelers, unlike Paris, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
Beyond that, some analysts said, Disney risks offending its partners in China and in Japan, where it operates two Tokyo parks, by adding another competitor to the region.Disney May Build Park Near Seoul
By Richard Verrier
Times Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the last several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials over a site south of Seoul, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve something more modest than the 310-acre Disneyland opening later this year in Hong Kong. The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in the early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed. Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company had no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China. Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney might be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions from Shanghai. Disney first signed a letter of intent 2 1/2 years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando, Fla.-based theme park consultant Bill Coan.
Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris, which opened in 1992.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The Burbank-based entertainment giant — which has 10 theme parks worldwide — has made international expansion a linchpin of its growth. Over the years, executives have talked about possibly expanding Disney's theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels. Disney will manage the park and control 43% of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost — $314 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm. The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
_____
Disney evaluates S. Korea for park
Sources say company executives have met with government officials about a site near Seoul.
By Richard Verrier
Sentinel Staff Writer
February 25, 2005
Looking to expand its global entertainment empire, Walt Disney Co. is sizing up South Korea for a possible theme park.
During the past several months, company executives have been in talks with government officials about a site south of Seoul, the South Korean capital, sources familiar with the matter said.
The proposal being discussed would involve a more modest project than the 310-acre site Disneyland is opening later this year in Hong Kong.
The Korean project would combine restaurants and shops with a smaller-scale version of a traditional Disney theme park.
Discussions are in early stages, sources cautioned, with financing details yet to be addressed.
Disney's foreign parks typically include substantial financial commitments by foreign governments and partners.
The company recently denied a newspaper report in South Korea that Disney had reached a deal on a nearly 800-acre site. Theme park chief Jay Rasulo reiterated in an interview this week that the company has no agreement, although he did call South Korea "a potentially attractive market."
Some longtime industry observers are skeptical that Disney will move forward in South Korea anytime soon because Disney is preoccupied in nearby China.
Disney plans to open its Hong Kong park in September. And it hopes to build a resort in Shanghai, where the company has been involved in lengthy talks for a park that would open after 2010.
Some longtime observers suggested that Disney may be using the South Korean talks as leverage to win concessions for the Shanghai park. Disney first signed a letter of intent two-and-half years ago in Shanghai, but no final deal has been struck.
"I would not be surprised if they are doing a little bit of gamesmanship," said Orlando-based theme-park consultant Bill Coan.
In the early 1990s, Disney successfully pitted government officials in Spain against their counterparts in France to win a host of lucrative concessions for building Euro Disney outside of Paris.
"They could be playing Korea off Shanghai," said Frank Stanek, former president of international business development for Universal Studios parks and resorts. "It's a logical extension of their historical practice."
The entertainment giant -- which has 10 theme parks worldwide -- has made international expansion a linchpin of its future growth. Over the years, Disney officials have talked about possibly expanding its theme park network to areas as varied as Singapore, Australia, India and Latin America.
Hong Kong Disneyland is set to include a theme park and two hotels.
Disney will manage the park and control 43 percent of the operation while contributing just a fraction of the cost -- $315 million. For its part, the Hong Kong government is expected to invest $2.9 billion in the park and accompanying infrastructure.
Like China, South Korea represents a largely untapped market for Disney. Company icons such as Mickey Mouse are highly popular there.
Disney has made some inroads in South Korea with the Disney Channel and its publishing arm.
The company is enticed by the nation's affluence and its population of about 50 million. South Korean theme parks also fare well; one of the 10 busiest parks in the world, owned by the Lotte retail chain, is in Seoul.
"I would look at this as a pretty strong market," Stanek said. "Korea has enough population and enough economic wealth to sustain a theme park."
Analysts said one drawback could be tensions caused by instability in neighboring North Korea. In addition, Seoul is not a major draw for international travelers, unlike France and Hong Kong.
Beyond that, analysts said, Disney risks offending its partners in China and in Japan, where it operates two Tokyo parks, by adding another competitor in the region.>
Top 8 GDP cities of Asia.
2004 GDP。(USD:billion)
1. Tokyo - 785
2. Seoul - 228
3. Osaka - 191
4. Hong Kong - 164
5. Yokohama - $112
6. Singapore - $94.1
7. Shanghai - $76
8. Taipei - $70.9>
1. Tokyo - 785
2. Seoul - 228
3. Osaka - 191
4. Hong Kong - 164
5. Yokohama - $112
6. Singapore - $94.1
7. Shanghai - $76
8. Taipei - $70.9>
Number of cranes in you city?
Right now in iner-city Manchester, there is 63 cranes...
you can see about a 5th of them on this pic.>
you can see about a 5th of them on this pic.>
Ethnic towns
We've all heard of chinatowns and such, but do any cities have towns for other ethnicities? like a mexican town, or indian town or something? post pics of different towns in your city..
Olvera St. in LA (mexican):
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
Little Saigon in Westminster in Orange County (Vietnam):
[IMG] members.tripod.com/ daveofcali/littlesaigon1.jpg[/IMG]
.JPG)
>
Olvera St. in LA (mexican):
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]www.xs4all.nl/ ~alexcity/LA/la227.jpg[/IMG]
Little Saigon in Westminster in Orange County (Vietnam):
[IMG] members.tripod.com/ daveofcali/littlesaigon1.jpg[/IMG]
>
Are McMansions Going Out of Style?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/re...te/02nati.html
Are McMansions Going Out of Style?
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
CHANGING STYLES A McMansion being built in 1998 in Irvington, N.Y.
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 2, 2005
LAST year, McDonald's phased out its "supersize" French fries and soft drinks. Portions, it seems, had gone about as far as they could go.
Could the same be true of the supersized houses known as McMansions?
After more than 30 years of steady increase, the size of the typical American house appears to be leveling off, according to statistics gathered by the Census Bureau.
"The Generation X-ers who are becoming home buyers right now want more amenities - and they are willing to trade away space to get them," said Jerry Howard, vice president and chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders.
Sandy Kennedy, a real estate agent, said the house she and her husband, John, are building in Cheshire, Conn., will be around 3,500 square feet, which is larger than the national average but smaller than many homes in the area. "We could afford more, but we want to limit ourselves to spaces we'll really use," she said. "We're looking more at quality than quantity of space."
A few years ago, she might not have felt that way. The size of the average American house rose from about 1,500 square feet in 1970 to more than 2,300 square feet in 2001, with a particularly big growth spurt in the late 1990's.
But from 2001 to 2004, the growth practically halted. "That suggests that the size of the average house is stabilizing," said Gopal Ahluwalia, a statistician with the home builders' association. For the second quarter of 2005, the average new detached house measured 2,400 square feet, according to the Census Bureau.
Mr. Howard says consumers are thinking less about space and more about "bells and whistles," including professional-style appliances and exotic woods with names like ipe and wenge.
Ms. Kennedy's house will have high ceilings, a Sub-Zero refrigerator and radiant heating embedded in the floor of a glass-walled "conservatory." And there will be lots of architectural moldings, her architect, Melanie Taylor of New Haven, said.
In a 2004 nationwide survey, the association asked homeowners: "For the same amount of money, which of the following would you choose: a bigger house with fewer amenities, or a smaller house with high quality products and amenities?" Only 37 percent of the 2,900 randomly selected respondents wanted the bigger house. Sixty-three percent said they would prefer the smaller house with more amenities.
In 2000, when the association asked the same question, the results were sharply different. Back then, 51 percent said they wanted the bigger house; 49 percent opted for the smaller-but-better house, Mr. Ahluwalia said. He added that he believes that even more will choose "the smaller house" when the association asks the same question in its next survey, in 2006.
Across the country, developers say they are seeing signs of that shift. "More and more people who come in are willing to talk about less space," said Catherine Horsey, a vice president of Urban Edge Developers in Dallas. She said new houses at the company's Urban Reserve development will average 2,500 square feet.
That, she said, is small for Dallas.
Of course, megahouses that outrage neighbors - and keep armies of contractors employed - are still going up in affluent areas. And companies like Toll Brothers that build thousands of homes each year say that some of their biggest models are also among their biggest sellers.
But even at the high end, where master bedrooms suites the size of tennis courts are common, there are signs that the trend toward bigness has abated.
Richard Warren, a planning consultant on the East End of Long Island, helps clients obtain zoning approval for new houses. In the last few years, he said, the number of people looking to build the largest permissible house has declined. "There will always be people who want big houses, but we're not seeing the grossness we'd been seeing," he said. "People are thinking twice about why they need all that space."
There are many reasons the appeal of bigger houses may be waning, including the high cost of maintaining them. "In a city where $1,000-a-month air-conditioning bills are not uncommon," said Ms. Horsey of Dallas, "people are beginning to say, 'Maybe I can have less space, and spend the money on a trip to Europe.' " Increasing fuel prices are likely to make large houses even less appealing, Mr. Ahluwalia and others said.
Rising interest rates and land prices also make large houses harder to afford. And an aging population increasingly includes empty-nesters who are looking to downsize, said Ms. Taylor, the designer of Ms. Kennedy's house in Cheshire.
Then there is the cost of furnishing the houses in a style appropriate to their dimensions. Robert A. M. Stern, the dean of the Yale School of Architecture, said he believes many McMansions are actually empty nests. "You walk in the door, and there's not a stick of furniture - certainly not furniture large enough to justify the spaces," he said.
But it may also be that Americans have simply attained all the space they need. The home builders' association, in its polls, asks consumers how big a house they would like to have. The average response in the 2004 poll was 2,426 square feet - barely bigger than the average house built this year. Mr. Ahluwalia, who has worked for the association for 29 years, said the gap between how big houses are - and how big people would like them to be - has never been so slight.
Mr. Stern, himself the designer of many large houses, agreed. "I think we've reached a size that satisfies most people's ambitions," he said.
George Suyama, a Seattle architect, has designed more than 100 houses in the Pacific Northwest. During the 1990's - the peak years of the dot-com boom - he was designing houses so large that he declines to give their dimensions. But now, he says, the houses he is being asked to design are far more modest.
"At least in Seattle, the people who can afford to do really huge houses have already done them," Mr. Suyama said.
Mr. Warren, the planning consultant on Long Island, said that several clients had "built large homes, and after they were finished they decided they were too big and they sold them to move to smaller houses."
Ron Jones, the owner of Sierra Custom Builders in Placitas, N.M., near Albuquerque said, "There's been a shift in the culture: More and more, people are realizing that it's not just the square footage. They're thinking more about issues like durability, and they're open to the idea of flexible spaces."
The public perception of big houses may help explain the shift. Owners of oversized homes are routinely portrayed as architectural yahoos whose "plywood palazzos" leave neighboring buildings in shadow. Some also associate the big houses with greed. In the corporate scandals of recent years, "a persistent motif was the grotesquely large houses of the perpetrators," said James Gauer, author of "The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes" (Monacelli, 2004).
At a recent zoning board meeting in New Canaan, Conn., speaker after speaker described new megahouses as intrusive. Residents demanded measures to reduce the so-called loom factor, or the degree to which new houses overpower their neighbors.
In less populous areas, builders of large houses are derided for despoiling the natural environment. Arthur Spiegel, who is retired from the import-export business, is building a 10,000-square-foot house in Lake Placid, N.Y., in the Adirondacks. The hilltop house has brought protests from the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, and construction has been halted by local building authorities.
Mr. Spiegel said that the house "is only 6,500 square feet, unless you count the basement," and that it's the right size for his extended family to gather in for ski vacations.
It may also be that, in the way skirts get shorter and ties narrower, housing styles change. For decades, houses with historical details - often rendered in a kind of fake stucco - have been in fashion. Ornaments reminiscent of Versailles or Buckingham Palace require extensive facades.
But those looks appear to be losing some ground to a style that harks back only to the mid-20th century, with flat roofs, generous overhangs and large glass walls.
Modernist houses stress connections between indoors and outdoors. Well-designed terraces, architects say, expand livable space, without requiring heating or air-conditioning.
While magazines like Architectural Digest regularly feature chateau-sized houses, upstarts like Dwell show modernist homes as small as 1,200 square feet.
Many architects are happy to see the tide turn away from big houses. Ms. Taylor of New Haven began her career 25 years ago designing 600-square-foot houses in Seaside, Fla. But in the 80's and 90's, she said, it became harder and harder to find people who wanted smaller houses, and her projects crept up as high as 11,000 square feet.
"I worked on houses, especially for developers, where you just had to fill the space because it was there," Ms. Taylor said. "It just seemed ridiculous. You just keep wondering what people are going to do with all those rooms."
Mr. Ahluwalia of the home builders' association can't hide his relief that houses aren't continuing their rapid increase in size. He called the new statistics "a ray of hope."
But aren't members of his association hoping houses will keep getting bigger? "If the consumer doesn't buy it, the builder is stuck with it," he said. His job, he said, is to tell builders what people want in a new home.
Added Mr. Howard, the association's chief executive, "What builders build is entirely market-driven. And the market appears to be changing.">
Are McMansions Going Out of Style?
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times
CHANGING STYLES A McMansion being built in 1998 in Irvington, N.Y.
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 2, 2005
LAST year, McDonald's phased out its "supersize" French fries and soft drinks. Portions, it seems, had gone about as far as they could go.
Could the same be true of the supersized houses known as McMansions?
After more than 30 years of steady increase, the size of the typical American house appears to be leveling off, according to statistics gathered by the Census Bureau.
"The Generation X-ers who are becoming home buyers right now want more amenities - and they are willing to trade away space to get them," said Jerry Howard, vice president and chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders.
Sandy Kennedy, a real estate agent, said the house she and her husband, John, are building in Cheshire, Conn., will be around 3,500 square feet, which is larger than the national average but smaller than many homes in the area. "We could afford more, but we want to limit ourselves to spaces we'll really use," she said. "We're looking more at quality than quantity of space."
A few years ago, she might not have felt that way. The size of the average American house rose from about 1,500 square feet in 1970 to more than 2,300 square feet in 2001, with a particularly big growth spurt in the late 1990's.
But from 2001 to 2004, the growth practically halted. "That suggests that the size of the average house is stabilizing," said Gopal Ahluwalia, a statistician with the home builders' association. For the second quarter of 2005, the average new detached house measured 2,400 square feet, according to the Census Bureau.
Mr. Howard says consumers are thinking less about space and more about "bells and whistles," including professional-style appliances and exotic woods with names like ipe and wenge.
Ms. Kennedy's house will have high ceilings, a Sub-Zero refrigerator and radiant heating embedded in the floor of a glass-walled "conservatory." And there will be lots of architectural moldings, her architect, Melanie Taylor of New Haven, said.
In a 2004 nationwide survey, the association asked homeowners: "For the same amount of money, which of the following would you choose: a bigger house with fewer amenities, or a smaller house with high quality products and amenities?" Only 37 percent of the 2,900 randomly selected respondents wanted the bigger house. Sixty-three percent said they would prefer the smaller house with more amenities.
In 2000, when the association asked the same question, the results were sharply different. Back then, 51 percent said they wanted the bigger house; 49 percent opted for the smaller-but-better house, Mr. Ahluwalia said. He added that he believes that even more will choose "the smaller house" when the association asks the same question in its next survey, in 2006.
Across the country, developers say they are seeing signs of that shift. "More and more people who come in are willing to talk about less space," said Catherine Horsey, a vice president of Urban Edge Developers in Dallas. She said new houses at the company's Urban Reserve development will average 2,500 square feet.
That, she said, is small for Dallas.
Of course, megahouses that outrage neighbors - and keep armies of contractors employed - are still going up in affluent areas. And companies like Toll Brothers that build thousands of homes each year say that some of their biggest models are also among their biggest sellers.
But even at the high end, where master bedrooms suites the size of tennis courts are common, there are signs that the trend toward bigness has abated.
Richard Warren, a planning consultant on the East End of Long Island, helps clients obtain zoning approval for new houses. In the last few years, he said, the number of people looking to build the largest permissible house has declined. "There will always be people who want big houses, but we're not seeing the grossness we'd been seeing," he said. "People are thinking twice about why they need all that space."
There are many reasons the appeal of bigger houses may be waning, including the high cost of maintaining them. "In a city where $1,000-a-month air-conditioning bills are not uncommon," said Ms. Horsey of Dallas, "people are beginning to say, 'Maybe I can have less space, and spend the money on a trip to Europe.' " Increasing fuel prices are likely to make large houses even less appealing, Mr. Ahluwalia and others said.
Rising interest rates and land prices also make large houses harder to afford. And an aging population increasingly includes empty-nesters who are looking to downsize, said Ms. Taylor, the designer of Ms. Kennedy's house in Cheshire.
Then there is the cost of furnishing the houses in a style appropriate to their dimensions. Robert A. M. Stern, the dean of the Yale School of Architecture, said he believes many McMansions are actually empty nests. "You walk in the door, and there's not a stick of furniture - certainly not furniture large enough to justify the spaces," he said.
But it may also be that Americans have simply attained all the space they need. The home builders' association, in its polls, asks consumers how big a house they would like to have. The average response in the 2004 poll was 2,426 square feet - barely bigger than the average house built this year. Mr. Ahluwalia, who has worked for the association for 29 years, said the gap between how big houses are - and how big people would like them to be - has never been so slight.
Mr. Stern, himself the designer of many large houses, agreed. "I think we've reached a size that satisfies most people's ambitions," he said.
George Suyama, a Seattle architect, has designed more than 100 houses in the Pacific Northwest. During the 1990's - the peak years of the dot-com boom - he was designing houses so large that he declines to give their dimensions. But now, he says, the houses he is being asked to design are far more modest.
"At least in Seattle, the people who can afford to do really huge houses have already done them," Mr. Suyama said.
Mr. Warren, the planning consultant on Long Island, said that several clients had "built large homes, and after they were finished they decided they were too big and they sold them to move to smaller houses."
Ron Jones, the owner of Sierra Custom Builders in Placitas, N.M., near Albuquerque said, "There's been a shift in the culture: More and more, people are realizing that it's not just the square footage. They're thinking more about issues like durability, and they're open to the idea of flexible spaces."
The public perception of big houses may help explain the shift. Owners of oversized homes are routinely portrayed as architectural yahoos whose "plywood palazzos" leave neighboring buildings in shadow. Some also associate the big houses with greed. In the corporate scandals of recent years, "a persistent motif was the grotesquely large houses of the perpetrators," said James Gauer, author of "The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes" (Monacelli, 2004).
At a recent zoning board meeting in New Canaan, Conn., speaker after speaker described new megahouses as intrusive. Residents demanded measures to reduce the so-called loom factor, or the degree to which new houses overpower their neighbors.
In less populous areas, builders of large houses are derided for despoiling the natural environment. Arthur Spiegel, who is retired from the import-export business, is building a 10,000-square-foot house in Lake Placid, N.Y., in the Adirondacks. The hilltop house has brought protests from the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, and construction has been halted by local building authorities.
Mr. Spiegel said that the house "is only 6,500 square feet, unless you count the basement," and that it's the right size for his extended family to gather in for ski vacations.
It may also be that, in the way skirts get shorter and ties narrower, housing styles change. For decades, houses with historical details - often rendered in a kind of fake stucco - have been in fashion. Ornaments reminiscent of Versailles or Buckingham Palace require extensive facades.
But those looks appear to be losing some ground to a style that harks back only to the mid-20th century, with flat roofs, generous overhangs and large glass walls.
Modernist houses stress connections between indoors and outdoors. Well-designed terraces, architects say, expand livable space, without requiring heating or air-conditioning.
While magazines like Architectural Digest regularly feature chateau-sized houses, upstarts like Dwell show modernist homes as small as 1,200 square feet.
Many architects are happy to see the tide turn away from big houses. Ms. Taylor of New Haven began her career 25 years ago designing 600-square-foot houses in Seaside, Fla. But in the 80's and 90's, she said, it became harder and harder to find people who wanted smaller houses, and her projects crept up as high as 11,000 square feet.
"I worked on houses, especially for developers, where you just had to fill the space because it was there," Ms. Taylor said. "It just seemed ridiculous. You just keep wondering what people are going to do with all those rooms."
Mr. Ahluwalia of the home builders' association can't hide his relief that houses aren't continuing their rapid increase in size. He called the new statistics "a ray of hope."
But aren't members of his association hoping houses will keep getting bigger? "If the consumer doesn't buy it, the builder is stuck with it," he said. His job, he said, is to tell builders what people want in a new home.
Added Mr. Howard, the association's chief executive, "What builders build is entirely market-driven. And the market appears to be changing.">
Which city is big in size and etc.
which city is big in size(like how long does it take for u to get to your destintion), biggest skyline, buildings, stores, restraurants,clubs,shopping?>
The Brits Can Teach Us Yanks How to Create Livable Cities
Published on June 28, 2005 by the Seattle Times
The Brits Can Teach Us Yanks How to Create Livable Cities
by Neal Peirce
Britain cares about its cities; the United States does not.
It was tough for Americans attending the Urban Land Institute's World Cities Forum here last week to reach any other conclusion.
And the Brits' visionary urban-agenda setter, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, made the point without a word of trans-Atlantic criticism.
Instead, Prescott simply described the amazingly broad set of activist initiatives that Prime Minister Tony Blair has allowed him to lead and champion — in housing, transportation, recycling abandoned industrial lands, revitalizing towns and using government power to force new malls and megastores back into downtowns.
All of this is rolling forward with tens of billions of pounds invested, pushed with little opposition in a national parliamentary system with few of the checks and balances of the U.S. system.
But the listening Americans couldn't help wonder: What if our federal government developed a vision of where American communities need to be headed?
"I can't think of one U.S. national politician who mentions cities or urban environment in any meaningful way," noted Urban Land Institute President Richard Rosan. "Not one of them is out there talking seriously about critical issues of transportation and housing, metropolitanwide planning, viability of communities — all ways that national government, even without dictating quite the way London does, could at least encourage a more secure and livable urban future."
Prescott, by contrast, is a hard-charging, one-time merchant seaman who's used his broad portfolio of powers to push projects on a scale unimaginable in the United States. The biggest of them all, the Thames Gateway Project, is intended to provide hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units — 128,000 in the first wave — to offset what Prescott describes as the "roaring" inflation of housing costs in southeast England.
Like the amazing run-up of housing costs that started around such U.S. hot spots as San Francisco and Boston and is now spreading nationwide, the London metro region escalation means fantastic wealth gain for some, but housing unaffordability for millions more.
So the Thames River lands, which start with London's highly successful Canary Wharf employment center but then run through 40 miles scarred by abandoned docks and quarries and factories, will be built out in a succession of communities offering state-of-the-art schools, health-care facilities, even three new universities. Along the line of the London-to-Paris "Chunnel" rail service, the area will have premier public-transport services. And government's substantial up-front monies, Prescott told me, will generate substantial private-sector development.
Can you imagine Washington — or indeed any American state government — moving so aggressively? Americans seem quite unaware of infrastructure as a true place-maker, notes the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program's Alan Berube. The English, and many Asian countries, are building massive new systems and communities, linked carefully to transportation, employment centers and amenities — new developments, says Berube, "not just plopped 30 miles outside with roads and a Target store."
Or in the words of New York Regional Plan Association president Robert Yaro: "Our competitors around the world are spending megabillions on rail, brownfield reclamation, urban regeneration in their megaregions. And we're frozen on our derriéres."
Will errors be made, significant sums of money misspent in all these ambitious projects? Yes, most likely. What's critical is to learn from the past — for example, the 20th century's dreary public-housing blocks for the poor, spectacular failures in both Britain and the United States.
Prescott vows not to repeat the errors; he talks instead of "sustainable" communities that don't just incorporate good environmental standards but assure a sense of place, low crime, transportation choices, citizen participation, economic development and "life chances for all." Such places, he argues, "create superb buildings and open spaces — where people want to be together and feel real pride in their own community."
Prescott's premier test of a sustainable community: housing opportunities and a welcome mat for people of many income groups. He sees deep divisions of income and class as the scourge of our time, to be attacked aggressively with public power and the public purse.
It's a stunning vision, extraordinarily tough to execute, even by a determined national government. The tragedy is that we Americans aren't even dreaming it.
© 2005 Seattle Times>
The Brits Can Teach Us Yanks How to Create Livable Cities
by Neal Peirce
Britain cares about its cities; the United States does not.
It was tough for Americans attending the Urban Land Institute's World Cities Forum here last week to reach any other conclusion.
And the Brits' visionary urban-agenda setter, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, made the point without a word of trans-Atlantic criticism.
Instead, Prescott simply described the amazingly broad set of activist initiatives that Prime Minister Tony Blair has allowed him to lead and champion — in housing, transportation, recycling abandoned industrial lands, revitalizing towns and using government power to force new malls and megastores back into downtowns.
All of this is rolling forward with tens of billions of pounds invested, pushed with little opposition in a national parliamentary system with few of the checks and balances of the U.S. system.
But the listening Americans couldn't help wonder: What if our federal government developed a vision of where American communities need to be headed?
"I can't think of one U.S. national politician who mentions cities or urban environment in any meaningful way," noted Urban Land Institute President Richard Rosan. "Not one of them is out there talking seriously about critical issues of transportation and housing, metropolitanwide planning, viability of communities — all ways that national government, even without dictating quite the way London does, could at least encourage a more secure and livable urban future."
Prescott, by contrast, is a hard-charging, one-time merchant seaman who's used his broad portfolio of powers to push projects on a scale unimaginable in the United States. The biggest of them all, the Thames Gateway Project, is intended to provide hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units — 128,000 in the first wave — to offset what Prescott describes as the "roaring" inflation of housing costs in southeast England.
Like the amazing run-up of housing costs that started around such U.S. hot spots as San Francisco and Boston and is now spreading nationwide, the London metro region escalation means fantastic wealth gain for some, but housing unaffordability for millions more.
So the Thames River lands, which start with London's highly successful Canary Wharf employment center but then run through 40 miles scarred by abandoned docks and quarries and factories, will be built out in a succession of communities offering state-of-the-art schools, health-care facilities, even three new universities. Along the line of the London-to-Paris "Chunnel" rail service, the area will have premier public-transport services. And government's substantial up-front monies, Prescott told me, will generate substantial private-sector development.
Can you imagine Washington — or indeed any American state government — moving so aggressively? Americans seem quite unaware of infrastructure as a true place-maker, notes the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program's Alan Berube. The English, and many Asian countries, are building massive new systems and communities, linked carefully to transportation, employment centers and amenities — new developments, says Berube, "not just plopped 30 miles outside with roads and a Target store."
Or in the words of New York Regional Plan Association president Robert Yaro: "Our competitors around the world are spending megabillions on rail, brownfield reclamation, urban regeneration in their megaregions. And we're frozen on our derriéres."
Will errors be made, significant sums of money misspent in all these ambitious projects? Yes, most likely. What's critical is to learn from the past — for example, the 20th century's dreary public-housing blocks for the poor, spectacular failures in both Britain and the United States.
Prescott vows not to repeat the errors; he talks instead of "sustainable" communities that don't just incorporate good environmental standards but assure a sense of place, low crime, transportation choices, citizen participation, economic development and "life chances for all." Such places, he argues, "create superb buildings and open spaces — where people want to be together and feel real pride in their own community."
Prescott's premier test of a sustainable community: housing opportunities and a welcome mat for people of many income groups. He sees deep divisions of income and class as the scourge of our time, to be attacked aggressively with public power and the public purse.
It's a stunning vision, extraordinarily tough to execute, even by a determined national government. The tragedy is that we Americans aren't even dreaming it.
© 2005 Seattle Times>
Largest cities
What is the largest city in the world size wise(not by population)?
For instance, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, Shanghai is ranked 31 first with 6,340.5 km² (31st) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai
What are the bigger cities and their total area?>
For instance, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, Shanghai is ranked 31 first with 6,340.5 km² (31st) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai
What are the bigger cities and their total area?>
What chicago will look like in the future
i wonder wat the chi will be like years to come and how will it look do anyone have pics for new buildings or know new plans for the city?>
The world's largest urban area in terms of volumes of human-made infrastructure?
WHich do you think is the urban area (by this meaning the metropolitan area and the rest of the urban sprawl of a city) has the most voluminous man-made infrastructure in total? (Of coarse there is no definite answers to this question - I'm just interested what you guys think is it. This question is should be answered based upon each persons opinion.) By the word infrastructure I mean, any tangible matter that was enhanced by humans to fit a certain purpose that may serve himself/herself or rather the entire community.
For example:
I chose Tokyo to be the city with the most voluminous man-made infrastructure put in place compared to any other huma settlement on this planet because:
1.) It has the world's largest urban railway network
2.) It has the world's largest storm-water drainage system (G-Cans Project)
3.) The most amount of reclamation areas within an urban conurbation.
4.) A seemingly endless or almost undisturbed sprawl of ultra-dense blocks as
far as the eye can see. (It probably even beats Sao Paulo's 48,000
high-rise count)
5.) Building sized Luxury Fashion Mega-Stores or Epicenters. Where else can
one see a huge concentration of building-sized boutiques of brands
like:
Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Prada, Hermes, Tod's, Salvatorre Ferragamo,
and Burberrys? Only Tokyo!
6.) The most sprawed-out built-up urban area in the world with exception from the uber-sprawed American cities like New York Tri-State Area, Chicagoland, San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento and Southland (Greater Los Angeles). Makes up for a consistent spread of density in all that sprawl.
7.) Most number of Grade-A office space volume in the world. And they are still building like crazy...rban area with the world's third most voluminious buildings undergoing construction after Beijing and Paris. 60 million sq. meters of Grade-A Space which when compared to New York (world # 2) is nearly twice as many.
Rules:
1.) May I just request that if ever you give the city name , at least, an indication ora proof as to why you chose such.
2.) There should be no bashing other urban areas, countries and, most especially, other forumers. Thank You!>
For example:
I chose Tokyo to be the city with the most voluminous man-made infrastructure put in place compared to any other huma settlement on this planet because:
1.) It has the world's largest urban railway network
2.) It has the world's largest storm-water drainage system (G-Cans Project)
3.) The most amount of reclamation areas within an urban conurbation.
4.) A seemingly endless or almost undisturbed sprawl of ultra-dense blocks as
far as the eye can see. (It probably even beats Sao Paulo's 48,000
high-rise count)
5.) Building sized Luxury Fashion Mega-Stores or Epicenters. Where else can
one see a huge concentration of building-sized boutiques of brands
like:
Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Prada, Hermes, Tod's, Salvatorre Ferragamo,
and Burberrys? Only Tokyo!
6.) The most sprawed-out built-up urban area in the world with exception from the uber-sprawed American cities like New York Tri-State Area, Chicagoland, San Francisco-Oakland-Sacramento and Southland (Greater Los Angeles). Makes up for a consistent spread of density in all that sprawl.
7.) Most number of Grade-A office space volume in the world. And they are still building like crazy...rban area with the world's third most voluminious buildings undergoing construction after Beijing and Paris. 60 million sq. meters of Grade-A Space which when compared to New York (world # 2) is nearly twice as many.
Rules:
1.) May I just request that if ever you give the city name , at least, an indication ora proof as to why you chose such.
2.) There should be no bashing other urban areas, countries and, most especially, other forumers. Thank You!
>
Which city owns the most famous sports institution in the world?
I think it's Real Madrid (Madrid).The worlds most famous football club of the worlds most popular sport.
Most Americans tend to think it's the New York yankees (New York).Not as universal a sport.>
Most Americans tend to think it's the New York yankees (New York).Not as universal a sport.>
What are the World's Most Famous MODERN Landmarks?
A blantant copy of wjfox2004's great thread...
What buildings/structures built since the close of WW2 in 1945 have defined a city or era and are worthy of being World Famous?
In London i would nominate...
1. London Eye
2. Millenium Dome
>
What buildings/structures built since the close of WW2 in 1945 have defined a city or era and are worthy of being World Famous?
In London i would nominate...
1. London Eye
2. Millenium Dome
>
City with most famous landmarks(locations)?
I'm not necessarily looking for history here, but global recognition. So these landmarks could range anywhere from the Tower of London to the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm also open to things that aren't even landmarks, per se. Neighborhoods, transit, etc.
My candidates would be(in no order);
New York
Washington DC
London
Paris
Rome
The recognition of these landmarks could be brought on by multiple facts; historical importance, present importance, news coverage, the media(television, movies), overall beauty...>
My candidates would be(in no order);
New York
Washington DC
London
Paris
Rome
The recognition of these landmarks could be brought on by multiple facts; historical importance, present importance, news coverage, the media(television, movies), overall beauty...>
Does your city has a multi-level driving range?
Just wanna know if your city has multi-level driving range at least 2-3 floors.
Here's one from Hong Kong (4 levels)
>
Here's one from Hong Kong (4 levels)
>
24 hour fast food in your city centre?
What are the fast food chains that operate 24-hours in your city centre?
Or give examples of other food outlets that open way past midnight.
>
Or give examples of other food outlets that open way past midnight.
>
Saigon City - Investment Invitation 2005
HO CHI MINH CITY INVESTMENT MART 2005
FIRST-EVER IN VIETNAM
It is the first time Ho Chi Minh City – the countryÂ's economic hub – organizes an investment mart aiming to call for foreign investments into the city. The mart entitled "Ho Chi Minh City Investment Mart 2005" hosted by Ho Chi Minh City PeopleÂ's Committee and organized by the Investment & Trade Promotion Center (ITPC) and the Department of Planning & Investment of the City will take place at New World Hotel (HCM City) during two days November, 8th and 9th, 2005.
Ho Chi Minh City has long been known as the economic hub of the country. With the population of over 6.5 million people, Ho Chi Minh City accounts for one fifth of VietnamÂ's GDP. This is the first time that HCMC introduces publicly and extensively projects calling for foreign investment under one roof, from both state sector and private sector.
Presented at the Mart will be over 120 projects belonging to four major groups: Infrastructure & Manufacturing, New Urban development, High-tech and Services. A number of projects among them will be introduced to general public for the first time, including projects to be carried out and has been executed but calling for more investment capital.
Beside the detail description of projects calling for investment, project owners/holders will be there to answer the inquiries from potential investors relating to their projects during the two days of the Mart.
The cityÂ's authorities efforts to assist investors to have easier access to available information. Ho Chi Minh CityÂ's relevant authorities will be on site to answer all questions about licensing, land, labour and other related issues. Workshops paneled by projects owners and economic consultants will help to provide a full picture of Ho Chi Minh City Investment Mart 2005.
Download Invitation Pack
WEBSITE
Thanks.>
FIRST-EVER IN VIETNAM
It is the first time Ho Chi Minh City – the countryÂ's economic hub – organizes an investment mart aiming to call for foreign investments into the city. The mart entitled "Ho Chi Minh City Investment Mart 2005" hosted by Ho Chi Minh City PeopleÂ's Committee and organized by the Investment & Trade Promotion Center (ITPC) and the Department of Planning & Investment of the City will take place at New World Hotel (HCM City) during two days November, 8th and 9th, 2005.
Ho Chi Minh City has long been known as the economic hub of the country. With the population of over 6.5 million people, Ho Chi Minh City accounts for one fifth of VietnamÂ's GDP. This is the first time that HCMC introduces publicly and extensively projects calling for foreign investment under one roof, from both state sector and private sector.
Presented at the Mart will be over 120 projects belonging to four major groups: Infrastructure & Manufacturing, New Urban development, High-tech and Services. A number of projects among them will be introduced to general public for the first time, including projects to be carried out and has been executed but calling for more investment capital.
Beside the detail description of projects calling for investment, project owners/holders will be there to answer the inquiries from potential investors relating to their projects during the two days of the Mart.
The cityÂ's authorities efforts to assist investors to have easier access to available information. Ho Chi Minh CityÂ's relevant authorities will be on site to answer all questions about licensing, land, labour and other related issues. Workshops paneled by projects owners and economic consultants will help to provide a full picture of Ho Chi Minh City Investment Mart 2005.
Download Invitation Pack
WEBSITE
Thanks.>
Globally important medium size cities
We have now
1) Singapore
2) Dubai
3) Hong Kong
4) San Francisco
5) Berlin
6) Rome
7) Madrid
8) Houston
9) Osaka
10)Sydney
11)Melbourne
12)Boston
13)Philadelphia
14)Lisbon>
1) Singapore
2) Dubai
3) Hong Kong
4) San Francisco
5) Berlin
6) Rome
7) Madrid
8) Houston
9) Osaka
10)Sydney
11)Melbourne
12)Boston
13)Philadelphia
14)Lisbon>
The definition of a world class city
Is this the true definition of a world class city.
No parking lots anwhere near the centre>
No parking lots anwhere near the centre
>
Government built housing vs. Section 8
Which one do you think is better?
Government built housing is when the government invests its own capital to building, operate, and maintain housing for low-income persons. They are usually large tenements in "run-down" areas of town but could be in the form of townhomes or even single family homes.
Section 8 is a department of housing and urban development program which grants rent vouchers to low-income persons in which they can use at any private rental property willing to participate in the program.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both have similar costs. Which do you feel is the more desirable approach to housing and why? Many communities already have a mix, but preference is clearly given to one over the other.>
Government built housing is when the government invests its own capital to building, operate, and maintain housing for low-income persons. They are usually large tenements in "run-down" areas of town but could be in the form of townhomes or even single family homes.
Section 8 is a department of housing and urban development program which grants rent vouchers to low-income persons in which they can use at any private rental property willing to participate in the program.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both have similar costs. Which do you feel is the more desirable approach to housing and why? Many communities already have a mix, but preference is clearly given to one over the other.>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)