DISCUSS: Most Futuristic City

[Andrew]

I actually also think that it's may not even be the huge cities like Tokyo that can be considered the most futuristic. Some of the smaller cities in Europe are very technlogically advanced but it's not as apparent as in cities like Tokyo because they are small cities and they integrate modern technlogies into historic cities. Also, the question for this thread was 'discuss the most futuristic city'. I don't think this is necessarily the same question as discuss the most technologically advanced city because there are many things that indicate progress such as good government, social welfare, economic development etc. Of course advanced technologies will still be the main thing that determines whether a city is futuristic or not but I think we can only say it's futuristic if such technologies (such as mass transit) are being used by all people on a regular basis. This is why I wouldn't put Shanghai up there as the most futuristic because while it does have 19 miles of the most advanced land transportation in the world, realistically how many ordinary Shanghai people actually use it? It's designed and built for the tourists and for the rich investors not for the average person working in a factory in the city - this isn't necessarily a criticism because if it succeeds in bringing in more investment to the city then it's a good thing but I don't think it makes it a 'futuristic city'.

[Andrew]

I'd like to give an example of a place I see as leading the way in a number of areas and I would therefore class as futuristic (not necessarily the most futuristic). It's not just one city, what I'm thinking of is the Randstad in Holland.
The Randstad consists of Holland's 5 largest cities; Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag, Utrecht and Haarlem all linked together by a network of motorways and high speed railways (and possibly air, I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter anyway because distances aren't large enough to make air travel necessary).



I don't think all the high speed railway and road links are complete yet but they certainly are at a very advanced stage of development. Basically once all the transort links are built (as I understand it) it will be possible to live in any one of the 5 cities and commute to any one of the other cities in the Randstad.
Each city is very different and has a very different role to play in the Dutch economy; Rotterdam is the economic capital - businesses located in the CBD and Rotterdam sea port is I think the second or third largest in the world now, Den Haag (although not Holland's official capital) is the seat of government and is home to the Dutch monarchy, courts and the International Court, Amsterdam is very much the tourist, historic and cultural capital as well as also being the other main economic powerhouse, Utrecht is a historic university city which is one of the country's foremost centres of learning and also a major tourist pull. Finally there's Haarlem - this is the only city I don't know anything about but from what I can tell this is also an historic city and a tourist attraction.
As can be seen from the map above the cities are all in a circle around a 'green heart' - an area of protected countryside. I believe the aim is for all the cities to have such good communications between them that they effectively act as if they were one spatially merged city. That way they can punch way above their individual weights and together be a rival for the more major economic centres. From what I can tell, they're well on their way to fulfilling this goal. They have a very good road network, a very good (and expanding) rail network and very good transport within their cities.
Each city has a very good public transportation system; Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag each have subway, tram and bus systems (which is not bad considering that the largest of them, Amsterdam, has only 736,651 population), Utrecht has trams and busses as well as the country's main railway terminal and Haarlem has busses (it's only 147,422 pop). All five cities are linked by rail and as far as I know either are or will be linked by high speed rail.

Pics...

Rotterdam:




http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100760

Amsterdam:




http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100759

Den Haag:



http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100761

Utreht:


http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100762

Haarlem:


http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100770

I'm sure you look at those pictures and think "futuristic? That's not futuristic" yeah it doesn't look futuristic in the Star Wars sense but I think the whole concept of the Randstad is what the future of Europe is going to be like. Not 100 story skyscrapers but networks of cities all connected by high speed transport links effectively becoming one city.

[IshikawajimaHarima]

Originally Posted by Siopao

Tokyo is more futuristic than HK... and I mean the way of life, transportation, and gadgets, animation, etc.... Tokyo is the hometown of many world-class technological comapnies like Sony, Yamaha, Honda, Nokia, etc.. it is the birthplace of the fastest railway system of the world!: The Bullet train.. more impressive than that of Hong Kong's tram network...

I dont really see Hong Kong as a futuristic city... I only see the sense of futuristic on their skyline... even so.. Hong Kong can be comparable to Shanghai but not entirely to Tokyo... Tokyo is number one

Don't name slumpy companies. It's shame.

[hkskyline]

Nokia isn't a Japanese company. It's from Finland.

[azimo]

Tokyo no question about it.

[stexxno]

mmm, some asian city i supose

[Küsel]

Why is DUBAI not mentioned - more futuristic and evolving is maybe not possible...!

[Effer]

What about Mumbai, the why it's economy is skyrocketing (and the rest of India!) it's sure to be one of the world's most important (WORLD CITY) cities in the next 50 years or so!

[stanford]

Unfortunately, Mumbai isn't the most futuristic city as of right now. Perhaps in 50 years it will be the most amazing city in the world.. but right now, it's a poverty-stricken city (in comparison to nearly all of the other cities up for nomination) thats severely lacking in basic infrastructures. The same goes for Shanghai. Both these cities are on the rise. This does not mean that they are not / will not be great cities in the future, but as of right now, they are significantly worse than their developed counterparts.

So.. my vote would have to go to a city where the standard of living is actually fairly high, now. Thus.. I'd have to say Tokyo or HK

[Nick in Atlanta]

I'm a big fan of the Netherlands, especially their ability to tame nature and create land where none existed. But, with the terrible situation in New Orleans right now which is due to breached levees, some of which were badly planned and maintained, but others that were well planned and maintained, what does the Netherlands have planned for any type of levee breach.

And please don't answer that it could never happen in the Netherlands because of this and this reason. New Orleans levee system was not as bad as one would think and it most certainly happened there.

[carfentanyl]

^ It already happened to the Netherlands, back in 1953, that's why it's less likely to happen again. We kept upgrading the whole system since then. You said the New Orleans levee system was not bad, and I'm sure it wasn't, but I do know that the whole system wasn't sufficient for Dutch demands. Our demands in levees(dikes) and water management are a lot more strict than in the USA.

Ofcourse it's not only dikes that do the work for us. Also big projects like the Zuiderzee works, Stormvloedkering and the Maeslantkering try to keep our oldest enemy out.

Stormvloedkering



Maeslantkering:



Just to give you an impression about the massive size, the two white structures are each about the size of an Eiffeltower.

[carfentanyl]

@ Andrew

The only thing that most people look at for deciding which city is most futuristic is which city has the highest futuristic towers. I mean people mention Dubai as futuristic, but what's so futuristic about not being aloud to kiss each other in public? To me that's Victorian. Or being arrested for possessing alcohol. That takes me back to the Prohibition. Also some of the neighbourhoods for their modern slaves, ehhh... I mean Malayalees are far away from what I would call futuristic.

But they do have huge shiny towers. Wow!

[Manila-X]

It's not being Victorian or Liberal it's different cultures. And we all have to be open minded about them.

When we talk about futuristic, it's not just the skyline but infastructure as well. A person's who's liberal doesn't mean he or she is modern!

[coldstar]

Originally Posted by hkskyline

Actually, Hong Kong is the world's first city to have an integrated smart card for the entire public transport network. This smart card has since been adapted for some vending machines and even as a passcard for building entry. The card itself has also been transformed from a traditional wallet-sized item to a cell phone cover or even a watch.

Very few cities have smart cards being so pervasive in everyday life. Hong Kong is one such success story.
Other cities are only catching up now.

But Hong Kong has nothing about its technolgy.
In fact, Hong Kong's Octpus card was not invented by any Hong Kong companies but by Tokyo's Sony.
Tokyo's Suica card, Singapore's EZ-link Card and HK's Octopus Card....all are dependent upon Sony's IT Technology and patent: FeLiCa.


related article

The Hong Kong Octopus Card is a prime example of a successful RFID-enabled deployment. More than 95 percent of the Hong Kong population uses the card, which is uses Sony's 13.56 MHz FeliCa RFID chip. The card is accepted by more than 100 transportation service providers and 160 retailers, including 7-Eleven, Starbucks, and Park & Shop. It can also be used at pay phones, photo booths, and parking garages.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/374/1/1/

and official site of FeLica...world standard of contactless smart card tecnology
http://www.sony.net/Products/felica/index.html

[hkskyline]

Hong Kong was the first to implement this technology for widespread use, even before Japan - the inventor of this technology.

[Andrew]

It seems to often happen that the country/s that has developed a technology are not the first to use it. High speed maglev technology has been mostly been developed in Europe and Japan and Shanghai is the first city to use it. I guess that prompts the question, 'which is more futuistic, the place that develops the technology of the place that first implements it?'

[Effer]

Originally Posted by stanford

Unfortunately, Mumbai isn't the most futuristic city as of right now. Perhaps in 50 years it will be the most amazing city in the world.. but right now, it's a poverty-stricken city (in comparison to nearly all of the other cities up for nomination) thats severely lacking in basic infrastructures. The same goes for Shanghai. Both these cities are on the rise. This does not mean that they are not / will not be great cities in the future, but as of right now, they are significantly worse than their developed counterparts.

So.. my vote would have to go to a city where the standard of living is actually fairly high, now. Thus.. I'd have to say Tokyo or HK

That's why the thread is called "Most Futuristic City"!

[stanford]

It's the most futuristic city now.. not the most futuristic city in the future.

[Nick in Atlanta]

Every city is somewhere on the conservative------liberal spectrum, but I think that differs from the "old fashioned"-------futuristic spectrum.

For instance, I would say that Dubai is both conservative and futuristic, while San Francisco is liberal and futuristic. Vienna seems conservative and old fashioned, while Amsterdam is liberal and old fashioned. In many ways these two spectrum are perpendicular to each other and form a cross like the Red Cross's symbol. You could plot various cities at different points on the figure.

[carfentanyl]

^ Why would Amsterdam be old-fashioned? Sure it's liberal, but old-fashioned??? It might look like an old city from a distance but up close it's a very modern and advanced city. I don't really know one single reason why SF would be futuristic and Amsterdam would be not...

I mean, SF might have more shiny towers, but Amsterdam has space ships!!!



[IMG]http://images.***************/20050330/ing_house_336x252.jpg[/IMG]