juz saw their live presentation, the one i would not prefer is rocco scheme.

Thank you for posting these

My wife and I sat down and looked through these. She remarked that the Rocco scheme "looked like a Hong Kong place" and I have to agree.

The foster scheme seems a bit too simple, I question both how the forest area would grow, and how it would be used. It would have to be mangrove, In my experience, the parks with structure and activity spaces in Hong Kong get much more use than unconstrained nature. A person can easily visit the peak or Lantau for huge expanses of trees, but these are not utilized.

The Rocco and OMA schemes seems to understand this a bit better, ithey provide spaces and suggests possible uses, without completely binding you too those uses. Rocco is simpler, while OMA is more exciting.

rocco scheme is a single complex in disguise as urban planning, with carparks underneath podium and walkways above then tower, its just another podium tower scheme like ifc, or elements next to it...

for OMA, i do not see how his village like planning different from leon krier's postmodern urbanism.

Aspect,

Please consider my opinion to be that a layman, urban planning is not my field.

I do have to ask though, your remarks about the Rocco and OMA schemes, is it a requisite that the proposals be something unique and new? can you explain your point further?

Thanks!

The Rocco scheme is plain dumb and has been done before. Foster is nothing new too.
The OMA scheme has a lot of potential and is my favorite.

Again, why do you use "is nothing new" or "has been done before" as criteria for deciding if it is a worthwhile scheme? Just because a scheme is new doesn't mean it is any more successful than an existing scheme properly applied to the specific situation.

Fosters and Rocco's schemes seem to be more contextually specific in the built sense. I mean that both of their schemes more nearly echo the surrounding built environment. They more uniformly place buildings which would continue as an extension from the north.

That being said, i think OMA's is more contextually specific in a human sense. I instinctively prefer the concept of small groups of varied buildings forming into villages over the uniform blandness of Foster's scheme and the strict hierarchical nature of Roccos. OMA's looks more democratic in that regard.

It also seems more individually identifiable. I always think, how would a person living there point out to an outsider where they live. Would it be, "I live in that 4th tower from the left, 15 floors up, 7th window from the right..." or would it be "I live in the middle village near the top end of x street"

one of those two feels much more human... and so i much prefer it... unscientific, but intuitive

"I live in that 4th tower from the left, 15 floors up, 7th window from the right..."

Obviously, no one in Hong Kong would ever accept such living conditions.... :)

Synergy, by "nothing new" and "has been done before", I mean to say that it does not being anything new to the table. In the context of many other cities and cultures in the world, not bringing a new idea would work fine. I dont think it would work that well in Hong Kong (in this specific context), because there is just so much potential, so much cultural 'grain', and such a strong social context. Granted I dont live in HK, like some of you do, but I have visited many times, and have a good sense of the place.

Somehow, maybe intuitively, or through "having been there", Koolhaas' proposal seems to condense all these various textures, and lifestyles in HK, while still offering a lot to the city.

Guess we have to wait for what the people have to say!

sameolddoctor,

Thank you for clarifying. To clarify about myself, I am not a Hong Kong resident either, but like you, am a regular visitor. I tend to agree with you, as I stated before, I favor the Koohlhas scheme over the others.

for me it goes

Koohlhas, Rocco, then Foster.

One issue I have with the Koohlhas scheme is the middle region, it is like a dumbbell, all the weight is at the ends. As a result, the middle art market seems to have less thought put into it. It does bring to mind the local markets of Kowloon, but I feel it doesn't bring anything new to them. If he is going for the long row of shops feel, why not add something new, maybe change the elevations, have it shift horizontally and vertically a bit, so it doesn't just exist as a hallway between his heavyweight attractions on either end.

by the way, anyone been up to the ICC tower observation deck or to the hotel?

I'm excited to see it develop too.

I like the idea of the adjacent themed gardens in OMA's scheme, but who the hell is going to want to maintain all that open space? plus, it seems like too much open space - and there are no trees?

of the three, foster's seems like the kind of place I'd like to spend time - the trees (wild areas?) are a nice buffer to the waterfront from the city - the others you can't really escape from the city - you're constantly in city.

Even in that forest you'd be facing directly across the bay at the island and all its developed glory. Nothing against trees, I just don't see it being used much in Hong Kong.

synergy: i think u wife is quite right to feel Rocco scheme "looked like a Hong Kong place", it is the same old tactics in many hk large development that enter through a bridge over a podium which activities seems to be freely open but in fact is a fully control podium by a single developer.

regarding rem scheme, as a local, i definitely want something new, unique and interesting, from what i see his montages, those are street life we have it everywhere in those old run down neighbor, not that we dislike it but its nothing fascinating... like at ground zero someone propose to implant a regular street life at east village!

its quite obvious the 3 scheme had been too political correct to local demand rather than questioning it! their theme becomes a collection of buzz word or lips service...

tree is good, so more trees... street is good, so more streets... sustainability is good, so more sustainability!

surprisingly i actually found myself liking Fosters and Rocco schemes more, than OMA.

Lately (for instance the St Louis Arch Park masterplan) I have been finding myself attracted more to Foster's plans than usual.. Something about the sort of classic (shudder) urbanism proposed.... I also like the long/large building as topography that makes up the point of Foster's proposal. Plus, as toast says all the trees. For some reason Rocco and OMA teams seem to both include a lot of open parkland...

I do think the multiple skyways/walkways of OMA's are an interesting (and from what I have read/know second hand of Hong Kong) a fairly indigenous typology?

haha Aspect, relax, it really isn't so dire! all three are actually pretty nice, I imagine it will be a beautiful space when completed. We are here just to critique and to make them even better, but keep perspective, none of them are so bad. :)

namhenderson,

I think the open parkland is perceived to be more useful for the local Hong Kong population. There are quite a number of spaces somewhat like these throughout the city, and they do seem quite popular.

a large open grass area is kind of an antiquated view of "park." there's a certain scale that "open field" works, and in the OMA scheme it's too big and doesn't have enough adjacent use to support it.

Foster, at least, seems to understand that we typically inhabit and remember space at the edges and at thresholds - and there are a lot of really nice edge and threshold conditions in his scheme.

I'm also generally not a fan of how OMA usually treats people as if they were herding cattle...

Here is a blog post, on the history of the district as well as the designs themselves. The author, as far as I know, isn't a designer, but he does present a nice perspective. I read his blog regularly and quite enjoy his insights.


Big Lychee

I like the urban neighborhood part of the OMA plan best among the three. IMO it's the only one of the three that pushes the envelope a little.

But what's with the placement of their big park? It effectively cuts off the urban precinct from the rest of the city.. who's going to want to wander through a tea garden and reed beds just to go between the urban precincts?