PDA

View Full Version : Hong Kong v London



lineupguy
August 22nd, 2009, 05:20 PM
I have written in the London New York thread why I think this is a better debate to be having.

If you read Stephen Bradley's speech and Fitzpatrick's response, you will see that there is a real rivalry here (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/hong-kong-better-than-london/page1/), unlike that between London and New York.

Its a much much hotter discussion (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/that-speech-by-stephen-bradley/page1/#post14569657) that has attracted a lot more attention (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/hong-kong-aint-no-world-class-city/page1/)than most other city v city debates which makes the other debate look a bit ho hum.

I am not sure how many of you have lived in both cities - anyone?

londonlawyer
August 23rd, 2009, 06:15 AM
I've never lived in HK but have visited and think that NY is way better.

lineupguy
August 23rd, 2009, 09:40 AM
NY may be better, thats the whole purpose of a London v Hong Kong discussion. Because Hong Kong s a city state unto itself - like London - and is probably a more reasonable counterpart for London in a contest than New York is, where the debate is more settled.

Alonzo-ny
August 23rd, 2009, 11:08 AM
You say there is a more intense rivalry, you will need to explain that. You haven't really made any points for comparison yet. We need these for a discussion to generate. What do you think? What is better or worse in each city?

londonlawyer
August 23rd, 2009, 11:45 AM
I even prefer Chicago to HK since it has far more pre-WWII structures.

lineupguy
August 23rd, 2009, 12:17 PM
Chicago is the king city for the earliest skyscrapers, maybe Hong Kong is the king of post WWII skyscrapers, and NY in between. But its not even about what you prefer as I am speaking about a more objective competition. Hong Kong has many old buildings, how long have you visited there?

Intense rivalry? I said "real" rivalry - its real enough if you read the comments of the Consul-General Bradley (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/that-speech-by-stephen-bradley/) and then Fitzpatrick (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/reply-to-gaffe-by-liam-fitzpatrick/) and Balfour (http://sleepny.lefora.com/2009/07/05/hong-kong-aint-no-world-class-city/page1/). It was quite a storm and there is a real debate going on right now.

futurecity
September 5th, 2009, 04:43 PM
I find HK streets a little too cluttered and grim -- I love its skyline and harbor, the best in the world though. I think it misses out on the wide clean lines of Tokyo or the old european architecture of Shanghai. Its trump is its setting and its stunning scrapers.

London offers more in general, the whole package in terms of livability (for a very large city that is) and streetscapes -- but it can't match HK in terms of awe inspring spectacular views and skyline. Also London has a shit airport location :)

PS. I hope people can still see me, I've noticed most of my posts are ignored or unanswered... I think I have some positive things to contribute though, even though you disagree with my transport views.

Alonzo-ny
September 5th, 2009, 05:23 PM
HK didn't have a good airport location either until they built a new one. London doesn't really have the option.

futurecity
September 6th, 2009, 12:14 AM
London has the option, they just won't invest in it. Hong Kong didn't have a choice, but still, Heathrow is in a ridiculous location for an airport that has such a large traffic count and intends to expand. Really, standsted would have been a more sensible location to focus investment and expansion for the future, not heathrow. However, now that they are putting so much into it in terms of terminals and infrastructure, they have made their choice and LHR will remain the premier airport. Poor choice IMO! Check out the arrival/departure route charts, you will see that there are very few parts of London where it is possible to escape noise from planes.. Different situation in HK, Paris, Tokyo, etc...

Anyway, London is a better city overall than HK, which is lacking in many areas, especially environmentally and in terms of pleasant streetscapes.

nick-taylor
September 8th, 2009, 07:43 AM
London has the option, they just won't invest in it. Hong Kong didn't have a choice, but still, Heathrow is in a ridiculous location for an airport that has such a large traffic count and intends to expand. Really, standsted would have been a more sensible location to focus investment and expansion for the future, not heathrow. However, now that they are putting so much into it in terms of terminals and infrastructure, they have made their choice and LHR will remain the premier airport. Poor choice IMO! Check out the arrival/departure route charts, you will see that there are very few parts of London where it is possible to escape noise from planes.. Different situation in HK, Paris, Tokyo, etc... Heathrow is one of London's greatest assets, and one of its biggest thorns. It's the aviation equivalent of the most important crossroad, but is also a burden for hundreds of thousands (including the Queen in Windsor) in terms of noise and air quality.

The problem with Heathrow however is not down to lack of investment (far from it it could be argued what with the Heathrow Express, Piccadilly Line, ULTRA network, T5, Heathrow East, and T6), but the greater issue that the London air space is the busiest on the planet.

Something like 130-140mn people pass through London's 5 international airports, in comparison the totals for New York, Paris and Tokyo are each around 90-100mn.

It would be very nice if there was one single airport for London, but I doubt we will actually see anything happen, especially what with the growth in aviation set to grow exponentially (even factoring in recessions and kerosene prices). Even Beijing is thinking of an even larger airport despite the '08 opening of T3 (the world's largest terminal), and Shanghai even though it has Pudong, is loooking to harness Hongqiao (located on the other side of town).

Even Dubai is getting in on the act of more than one airport; they just opened a new terminal for Emirates (a very very long terminal building I might add - used it when I transferred to Bangkok), and the new airport is meant to have a capacity of 150mppa and 12mn ton cargo capacity. Obviously that could change what with Dubai in meltdown, but the idea of multiple airports isn't a train of thought that has been discarded.

Hong Kong is also an interesting case study. Chek Lap Kok replaced Kai Tak (actually located in Kowloon), because of the ridiculous approach paths and lack of space to expand. Yet even the new airport on reclaimed land has a major significant limit - primarily the projected cost for a third runway would be equivalent to an entire new airport. Case studies have even looked at harnessing Shenzhen (god awful airport I might add) solely for regional flights, similar to say how London operates with Gatwick and Heathrow as the primary international portals, and Stansted, Luton and City acting as regional hubs.

For most intents and purposes the idea of several airports is here to stay.


Has anyone heard anything from Gregory T... ;)

brianac
September 8th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Has anyone heard anything from Gregory T... ;)


He's probably checking this out.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01476/train-japan_1476946i.jpg

The new Narita Express E259 series train stands at the platform of Shinagawa Station during a press viewing in Tokyo, Japan
Picture: GETTY

futurecity
September 8th, 2009, 11:13 PM
All very well and good, but you have an airport like stansted nearby which is a much better location for expansion into a mega-hub than Heathrow, even Gatwick would be a more sensible choice. With improvements in rail connections, stansted could be positioned to take over heathrow's role as London's global hub given its rural location and room to add 3 or more runways. Heathrow expansion should be halted and future expansion shifted instead of adding more runways. Really, this is what I forsee happening. I predict that LHR will never get runway 3.

nick-taylor
September 9th, 2009, 10:46 AM
All very well and good, but you have an airport like stansted nearby which is a much better location for expansion into a mega-hub than Heathrow, even Gatwick would be a more sensible choice. With improvements in rail connections, stansted could be positioned to take over heathrow's role as London's global hub given its rural location and room to add 3 or more runways. Heathrow expansion should be halted and future expansion shifted instead of adding more runways. Really, this is what I forsee happening. I predict that LHR will never get runway 3.I live about 5 miles from London Stansted and would very much welcome a massive international hub on my doorstep (but fortunately live in the island that isn't under flight paths), but Stansted is primarily a medium-haul low-cost-carrier hub.

Heathrow will also get a third runway which will allow for the two primary runways to cater solely to your 747's and A380's, allowing smaller aircraft to use the new northern runway.

Heathrow will also be connected to the planned HSR network thus negating many internal flights altogether. In addition Birmingham International Airport would be 30mins away.

Although in say 20 years I could possibly envision a complete seperation of air groups, eg Oneworld at Heathrow, Star Alliance at Gatwick, and the LCC's at Stansted & Luton.