After living in Singapore for a National Science Foundation (NSF) research project at the National University of Singapore (NUS); the city is strictly amazing. I have not yet lived in such a well made, safe, and visually beautiful city. The United States of America (USA) can learn quite a bit from the Singaporean people 🤓
Singapore and Hong Kong are often compared to each other. Both are land scarce, highly dense, former British colonies. Both also grew into international trading hubs. In terms of urban management, however, they could not be more different. Pre 1997 Hong Kong has been described as having the purest form of capitalism on the planet. Small government was good. The market set the agenda, resulting in urban embarrassments such as caged housing and the walled city in Kowloon. There is no sign of the government changing tack even under the city's new mainland management. Singapore took a different route. It did not leave everything to the free market. It used draconian powers to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes. Ad hoc statutory boards like Mr Liu's HDB were set up. The government took a proactive role in public housing, in assembling sites for redevelopment, in urban landscaping, in public transport, even in car ownership. Which is a bit strange considering the importance of private enterprise to the Singapore economy, then and today. It wasn't all roses of course. Some landowners were shafted when their properties were acquired, often at rates well below market prices. Organic communities living in kampongs and what Mr Liu describes as 'squatter settlements' were broken up and compelled to adopt a very different lifestyle living in high rises. Car ownership is possible, but only if you pay exorbitant prices. But if you subscribe to the Bentham principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, most would concede that modern Singapore has worked. Better than the Hong Kong alternative anyway.
Lots of cities have already been around for a few generations. Parts of European (& worldwide) Cities have already been around for dozens of generations. I'm amazed how common wooden houses are in the US, given the extreme weather events, molds, termites & combustible nature of wood. Granite castles just never caught on over there!
In China the gov colludes with property developers to build sub standard buildings for people to live in so that they can tear it down at a later date, rebuild and charge more, and the cycle continues and land prices soar.
Millions of people in Ethiopia northern Tigray region are facing starvation and hunger is being used as a weapon of war please keep them in your thoughts
1. design for quality not design for quantity 2. Design for human not design for digit. 3. design for the house inside not design to look good on the outside. Sound good but miss the main point. Focus on quality of life rather than focusing on the surface of life. Can we build urban cities that last for generations? Of course can, but do you and your children want to live inside if you have a choice?
Very articulate in his thoughts and concepts. I hope the corrupt Nigerian government will learn from this amazing project and plan the cities in Nigeria. This lawlessness in Nigeria has to stop please.
Land lords should quit their "jobs" Property hoarding isn't a job Rent is extortion Homelessness is violence No one gets a second house until everyone has one
I have a proposal: why to think about building cities, when there is a better solution - make homes mobile. Make addresses virtual, citizenship meaningless, language international.
"Can we build urban cities that last for generations? " Sans watching this... are you kidding with this title? Are urban cities that don't last a generation a thing?
