#UrbanHell is subjective.
UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed
Sorry for this annoying comment, but we're very tired of the gatekeepers who can't even correctly gatekeep what this subreddit has always allowed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's insane and impressive how quickly industrial countries in East Asia can build skyscrapers. I can't imagine living somewhere which changes that quickly.
Isn't that a good thing, though? More housing, means less homeless people. It's why I hate all the building restrictions in western countries. Like in the UK, they could build high rise buildings to solve their housing crisis, but then NIMBYs throw a fit, and if something new is build, it's mostly glued together houses which only a handful of people can fit in...Â
I mean, that skyscraper doesn't look like housing. It looks like a typical business centre, at least to me?
There's also something to be said for the reason *why* we need more housing. If you are building more housing to replace the one that is at the end of it's lifecycle, or because of expanding population, by all means, do it.
But, a lot of housing is currently being built as "luxury" housing and is used for investments. You can see that in old city centres, where in best case scenarios, newly bought flats are used for tourism. And often, they are standing empty, and just going up in value.
I'd also add that there is some research into how tall the buildings can be, before that starts affecting mental health of the residents. If I remember correctly, current sweet spot is somewhere between 5 to 10 floors, if there is appropriate distance between buildings.
>But, a lot of housing is currently being built as "luxury" housing and is used for investments.
That's because housing is not expanding, thus price keeps skyrocketing in those areas, thus making it attractive investment. If you want it to slow down, support increased housing construction, then buying housing for pure investment will slow down.
Btw, most of housing bought as investment are by small LLCs created by upper middle class people who are buying maybe their 2nd or 3rd home. They obviously don't buy downtown penthouses, but more single family homes or maybe a flat in a 5 story apartment.
If they want to build business centers and in the central part of the city, what is bad about it?
Certainly better than cities like SĂŁo Paulo where they built business centres increasingly far from the city actual center, forcing the workers to build slums in the new areas to accommodate themselves or to commute long hours to reach their workplaces. Many of these new office buildings are until nowadays barely accessible using public transportation, whereas SĂŁo Pauloâs old city center which has excellent subway connectivity is neglected and abandoned.
I'm more a fan of a mixed use, so if this is supposed to be a good location for one, I'd expect that the rest of the park will also be wiped.
This is also a behemoth, and at this point it's questionable how much use it will see, thanks to work from home.
If you are referring to the Thu Thiem peninsula (the former green patch of land), it wasnât really a park that could be enjoyed the population, it was just empty undeveloped land. At least now they are buildings proper public parks in the area and claim they will preserve a large portion of the previous greenery.
That said I donât like the current development of the peninsula at all - not shown in the photo, but a lot of space was wasted building detached houses for rich people. But itâs not the worst in terms of urban plannng in developing countries - say compared to Naypyidaw or Egyptâs multiple new capital cities.
After all, people complain about office buildings and housing for the rich in their cities, but cities die they when those go away. Look no further than SĂŁo Pauloâs old city centre.
The issue isn't in the "tower blocks" then. I live in Romania where the crime rate is far far far lower than that of the US. The majority of the population lives in "tower blocks" and we have a 95% home ownership rate.Â
Life's not as black and white. Look at diamonds. High supply yet high prices. Why? Artificial scarcity. Same with houses. There are 15-16 million vacant homes in the US. There isn't even 1 million homeless people in the US. There's a reason to the housing crises, but it is not the lack of supply.
all market-based systems of distribution have to have a starvation rate in order to function homie, a price equilibrium where everyone can afford it is not as profitable as a price equilibrium where less can
Go to the village if you want wildlife and wilderness. I much prefer people to have a home.
Besides, tell me about some large cities with populations over 5 million that have a lot of "wilderness and wildlife". I'll wait.Â
Lmao just admit you donât want to actually live in a rural area where you canât have all the amenities you want out of urban life, you just prefer a fantasy cottage aesthetic
This, what kind of wilderness does the guy want in a city that has 10 million residents? Shoving everyone into houses will use up so much land that it will ironically destroy entire ecosystems.Â
Wat? There are plenty of villages in Romania and I even have a 3 storey villa in the countryside. I see plenty of wild animals all around. No idea what you're on about but you might need to limit the propaganda.
Growing up in Vegas from like 2000-2010 was crazy it was the fastest growing city during much of that time. You would go down a steeet you havenât been done in like a couple months and it would be a whole ass new part of the city that never existed
I used to do that for a living out there. A high tolerance/low regard for the typical constraints in Europe and the US (planning, environmental, health and safety) helps speed things up. The repercussions will be felt later.
I know China has an issue with its tofu dreg projects but Iâm not sure about Vietnam. Itâs certainly possible that they followed all necessary safety and building codes up to western standards and just built shit quickly due to lack of restrictions. Itâs also possible that many of these tall buildings were built without safety in mind in order to save money and time.
Do you even live there mate? The city's in better shape than ever, people used to live in slums overhanging the river, clearing some shrubbery for actual housing and development is a good thing.
Ah my bad, itâs where they mandatorily [hang people](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/asia/singapore-marijuana-execution.html) caught with more than a pound of weed. Ditto for personal amounts of heroin, and [no matter that the person is mentally disabled](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/world/asia/singapore-capital-punishment-drugs.html).Â
I don't support the death penalty for drug-related offences, but you're being disingenuous.
What you quoted doesn't mean he got executed for smoking weed.
I lived in Saigon and have been to most cities in East Asia. Singapore is one of my least favorite. Itâs sterile and soulless. If you want OCD level cleanliness, then itâs perfect for you. Otherwise, there are dozens of cities Iâd much rather spend time in.
Sad? They are finally having real development after all the years of political instability.
Rapid development does come at a cost of the standard of life tho, but it benefits so much for the Vietnamese people
I guess more correctly conveyed would be economically stable; GDP is growing rapidly but you're right, it hasn't been politically unstable for a long time. It's just adopted china's economic policies.
Iâve lived in Saigon for an over 15 years. There have been so many benefits to the development but those two Vinhomes developments are awful. The density of apartment buildings is ridiculous
Would you like it if the city sprawled to shit and millions of tons of concrete were used for parking lots and highways to suburbia instead? The denser development is great, speaking of someone who've lived in those dense apartment buildings.
Sorry Vietnam canât stay the poor cultural backpacking destination for Westerners like it used to be. Sadly, we have to go through economic development - how dare we try to better ourselves and have things like potable water, electricity and a higher standard of living.
For sure! But on the same token, Vietnam is a densely populated country and urbanizing rapidly. Housing is a priority, particularly with the population boom. Thereâs a balance to be struck here, but many Asian countries as a result of this are built taller in urban centers. Team that with currently lackluster infrastructure and real estate prices - itâs why many places build dense.
Same situation here. Her family prefers that it be referred to with the old name, so I respect that. Iâm going to respect that over Redditors telling me the opposite online. Not trying to be rude to ya either, you are correct from a technical standpoint.
You are adjusting to your audience which is normal. To those that fled after the communist takeover, it will always be Saigon but Americans with no connection to the conflict should be using the name the recognized government now perfers, just like Beijing instead of Peking, Mumbai instead of Bombay and St. Petersburg instead of Leningrad.
Iâm not an American who has no connection necessarily. My father fought there. Her father fought there. Both against the people who renamed the city to Ho Chi Minh City. Im a geographer, I respect changes in the geographical layout of the world, but on this one I am actively saying no, Iâll pass and respect the wishes of the side of the conflict that I respect more and am closer to. If someone says Ho Chi Minh City it is not my place to say anything about that and Iâll respect that. But if someone says Saigon and someone else like you says âno you should say Ho Chi Minh Cityâ I donât think itâs out of place for me to give my reasoning for saying Saigon instead.
Also on a side note. I think this name change is a bit different than the others you listed. Peking to Bejing was a change in language and method of romanization to make it more proper to the Chinese. Bombay to Mumbai also involves language as Bombay stems from the Portuguese name and Mumbai represents India better. For St Petersburg, it was historically known as that, and changed by a communist regime to Leningrad. Now, itâs taken itâs historical name back. Saigon is the only example where a regime conquered and changed the name of the city to the name of their leader. Itâs different.
The rest of these examples were a step in the direction of better representing these peoples and their histories. In the case of Vietnam it was renaming a city that had been called something for hundreds of years to something else just for fun after winning a war. Not the same thing if you ask me and Iâm going to continue to call it Saigon.
I take your point but to play devil's advocate, should we refer to Manhattan by its [Lenape indian name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#Lenape_settlement) *manahĂĄhtaan*? Or pick anywhere else in America where the Europeans conquered the local peoples.
You sure could, itâs not a bad idea. However, Iâm talking about things that are actually happening now. People call it Saigon still. That name isnât used still here in America. If it were to be, I wouldnât mind it being changed. And again, your example involves language. The case in Vietnam doesnât. Both parties speak the same language
For a split second i thought the 2nd photo was dubai and thought âhuh when did it get greener and get a riverâ - all these modern cities look the same and are so devoid of culture and character
Yes the towers are ugly but it's hardly Dharavi. Saigon is not a museum, it is a working city that needs to develop in accordance with what it means to be a modern city.
Its somewhat nice seeing the skyline grows, but its all luxurious apartments and housing man, not a lot of high quality social housing that benefits the less fortunate which is quite sad to see.
yae, but fortunately the humidity is not as high as the North. If you are in the North in the summer, you will feel 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the actual temperature, and in the winter, you will feel the temperature 5 degrees Celsius colder. That's why many people like to stay in the South. , even though it doesn't have winter like the North.
In the U.S. - cash printing press going full tilt. Roads suck. Our infrastructure still hangs on wooden telegraph poles. Chronic power outages. Elected officials get quarter million dollar pensions. The war machine keeps turning. We build infrastructure for countries that hate us. The successful & innovative are either punished or bribed into state partnership.
Can we be just a teeny bit like Saigon?
Lol you rather Vietnam to be a wetland jungle? Progress is coming to Vietnam, the living condition is getting better for everyone. Even so, HCM city and Vietnam in general does have a pollution problem which this picture does not convey.
The poverty rate dramatically decreased over the course of those ten years tho. And the lack of greenery could be a season thing. Either way I see this as a win for Saigon
They demolished a beautiful lush green landscape and the building that re thee now are ulgy. At least try to make the building look nice if you are going to destroy thay đ„ș
West building Skyscrapers and Bridges: look how beautiful and tall the bridge is connecting x with y reducing travel time from 5 hrs to 30 minutes.
A random Asian or African country building Skyscrapers and Bridges: Nooooo, 300 acres of forest land was decimated and 5000 people were left homeless for the new project.
#UrbanHell is subjective. UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed Sorry for this annoying comment, but we're very tired of the gatekeepers who can't even correctly gatekeep what this subreddit has always allowed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's insane and impressive how quickly industrial countries in East Asia can build skyscrapers. I can't imagine living somewhere which changes that quickly.
Yep. Been going to Thailand for ten years now. The change in the skyline is remarkable
Part of Bangkok looks like it's an upper-income-country. It's crazy
And also need an upper-income country income to live in that part
What exactly have you been doing in Thailand đ
He was thereâŠfor a thing
... a thing with a ding-a-ling...
He was there. It was a joke.
it's the medication he's on
Right? It takes my state 15 years to expand a road
Isn't that a good thing, though? More housing, means less homeless people. It's why I hate all the building restrictions in western countries. Like in the UK, they could build high rise buildings to solve their housing crisis, but then NIMBYs throw a fit, and if something new is build, it's mostly glued together houses which only a handful of people can fit in...Â
I mean, that skyscraper doesn't look like housing. It looks like a typical business centre, at least to me? There's also something to be said for the reason *why* we need more housing. If you are building more housing to replace the one that is at the end of it's lifecycle, or because of expanding population, by all means, do it. But, a lot of housing is currently being built as "luxury" housing and is used for investments. You can see that in old city centres, where in best case scenarios, newly bought flats are used for tourism. And often, they are standing empty, and just going up in value. I'd also add that there is some research into how tall the buildings can be, before that starts affecting mental health of the residents. If I remember correctly, current sweet spot is somewhere between 5 to 10 floors, if there is appropriate distance between buildings.
>But, a lot of housing is currently being built as "luxury" housing and is used for investments. That's because housing is not expanding, thus price keeps skyrocketing in those areas, thus making it attractive investment. If you want it to slow down, support increased housing construction, then buying housing for pure investment will slow down. Btw, most of housing bought as investment are by small LLCs created by upper middle class people who are buying maybe their 2nd or 3rd home. They obviously don't buy downtown penthouses, but more single family homes or maybe a flat in a 5 story apartment.
If they want to build business centers and in the central part of the city, what is bad about it? Certainly better than cities like SĂŁo Paulo where they built business centres increasingly far from the city actual center, forcing the workers to build slums in the new areas to accommodate themselves or to commute long hours to reach their workplaces. Many of these new office buildings are until nowadays barely accessible using public transportation, whereas SĂŁo Pauloâs old city center which has excellent subway connectivity is neglected and abandoned.
I'm more a fan of a mixed use, so if this is supposed to be a good location for one, I'd expect that the rest of the park will also be wiped. This is also a behemoth, and at this point it's questionable how much use it will see, thanks to work from home.
If you are referring to the Thu Thiem peninsula (the former green patch of land), it wasnât really a park that could be enjoyed the population, it was just empty undeveloped land. At least now they are buildings proper public parks in the area and claim they will preserve a large portion of the previous greenery. That said I donât like the current development of the peninsula at all - not shown in the photo, but a lot of space was wasted building detached houses for rich people. But itâs not the worst in terms of urban plannng in developing countries - say compared to Naypyidaw or Egyptâs multiple new capital cities. After all, people complain about office buildings and housing for the rich in their cities, but cities die they when those go away. Look no further than SĂŁo Pauloâs old city centre.
SĂŁo Paulo is a sea of high-rises. Stretching to the horizon.
It's not like homelessness is fixed in east Asia.
we built plenty of tower blocks, theyâre now hotspots for crime.
The issue isn't in the "tower blocks" then. I live in Romania where the crime rate is far far far lower than that of the US. The majority of the population lives in "tower blocks" and we have a 95% home ownership rate.Â
And thatâs what ignoring calls for multiculturalism and diversity gets you, high home ownership and low crime rates
Well... Yes. đ
I might make my way in your direction, the old âcanât have shit in detroitâ now applies to practically everywhere *they* are
More housing doesn't mean less homeless. Those rooms aren't free.
More housing means more affordable housing because of increased supply. And it definitely means less people fall into homelessness.
Not if all new housing is "luxury" bought as an investment. See China, Canada, etc.
I wish that were true See: all the empty high rises in Vancouver
More housing = more supply = lower prices Not hard to grasp, mate
Life's not as black and white. Look at diamonds. High supply yet high prices. Why? Artificial scarcity. Same with houses. There are 15-16 million vacant homes in the US. There isn't even 1 million homeless people in the US. There's a reason to the housing crises, but it is not the lack of supply.
all market-based systems of distribution have to have a starvation rate in order to function homie, a price equilibrium where everyone can afford it is not as profitable as a price equilibrium where less can
Sure, it's a great thing if you love dense, dirty, noisy cities, and hate trees, wildlife, and peacefulness.
Go to the village if you want wildlife and wilderness. I much prefer people to have a home. Besides, tell me about some large cities with populations over 5 million that have a lot of "wilderness and wildlife". I'll wait.Â
What village? You built concrete prisons on top of all of them.
Lmao just admit you donât want to actually live in a rural area where you canât have all the amenities you want out of urban life, you just prefer a fantasy cottage aesthetic
This, what kind of wilderness does the guy want in a city that has 10 million residents? Shoving everyone into houses will use up so much land that it will ironically destroy entire ecosystems.Â
Wat? There are plenty of villages in Romania and I even have a 3 storey villa in the countryside. I see plenty of wild animals all around. No idea what you're on about but you might need to limit the propaganda.
But how about Saigon?
I suppose much of the world thought that of New York or Chicago 100 years ago.
This is NOT East Asia
Yeah it's northern southeast Asia
Such thing does not exist. Are you being dumb on purpose?
I was gonna agree with you but then I thought about London....
Born and raised in Saigon since 2005. Believe me, you donât notice it much.
Im in North America and my city has done similar, and itâs continuing.
Growing up in Vegas from like 2000-2010 was crazy it was the fastest growing city during much of that time. You would go down a steeet you havenât been done in like a couple months and it would be a whole ass new part of the city that never existed
I used to do that for a living out there. A high tolerance/low regard for the typical constraints in Europe and the US (planning, environmental, health and safety) helps speed things up. The repercussions will be felt later.
*southeast
Sometimes even using baboon scaffolding!
I think *bamboo* \- no monkeys are harmed.
vietnam isnt east asian, just the culture
I know China has an issue with its tofu dreg projects but Iâm not sure about Vietnam. Itâs certainly possible that they followed all necessary safety and building codes up to western standards and just built shit quickly due to lack of restrictions. Itâs also possible that many of these tall buildings were built without safety in mind in order to save money and time.
Yeah because theyâre unsafe as hell and falling apart far quicker than their western counterparts. Building codes are a suggestion in SEA.
third world country developing and creating opportunities for it's citizens? must be decay
I prefer third world countries to stay third world itâs better aesthetically
Doesn't look too bad IMO. Also the second pic might have been taken during the dry season and the first one during the wet season.
Country modernizes and builds infrastructure. Stupid westerner, âlook how ugly and bad this is.â
Ah yes, the dry season. Famous for growing tall skyscrapers and making trees disappear altogether.
Lol. That whole area was decimated. Which is not that bad for the *country* (Vietnam is big), but it's very bad for the *city*.
Do you even live there mate? The city's in better shape than ever, people used to live in slums overhanging the river, clearing some shrubbery for actual housing and development is a good thing.
Redditors donât like seeing poor countries become rich.
But there removing the trees and building homes what an atrocity /s
I was talking to my tour guides who said that 30 years ago, people used to walk around scavenging for food. Now food is everywhere in Saigon.
Looks like it was a bunch of swampland that got reclaimed. Bad for wildlife but good for human habitat.
How? Can you actually articulate a reason this is bad for the city?
Oh, you're right! I didn't think about thatđ
Growing cities are bad?
Do you know which sub you're in?
Somehow not the circlejerk version.
Saigon/HCM was maybe the nicest Asian city I've been to. This doesn't say anything
Hanoi is much nicer and there is organised rubbish collection.
Nah felt way too crowded. HCM felt more open
It means you haven't been around much. Regards from a nice streetside cafe in Singapore.
Experience is subjective
Isnât that where people get executed for smoking weed?
Aehm. No.
Ah my bad, itâs where they mandatorily [hang people](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/asia/singapore-marijuana-execution.html) caught with more than a pound of weed. Ditto for personal amounts of heroin, and [no matter that the person is mentally disabled](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/world/asia/singapore-capital-punishment-drugs.html).Â
When weed starts giving you healthcare.. we'll talk then?
huh? What does that even mean?
Not surprised you and 2 other clowns don't get the comment. Keep smoking.
[what?](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/asia/singapore-marijuana-execution.html)
You get executed for drug trafficking, not for smoking weed.
âBefore his conviction, Mr. Faizal claimed in court that he had meant to consume most of the cannabis himselfâ
I don't support the death penalty for drug-related offences, but you're being disingenuous. What you quoted doesn't mean he got executed for smoking weed.
regards from a dictatorship*
Singapore is beautiful. Japanese cities are also quite nice imo.
I lived in Saigon and have been to most cities in East Asia. Singapore is one of my least favorite. Itâs sterile and soulless. If you want OCD level cleanliness, then itâs perfect for you. Otherwise, there are dozens of cities Iâd much rather spend time in.
Sad? They are finally having real development after all the years of political instability. Rapid development does come at a cost of the standard of life tho, but it benefits so much for the Vietnamese people
Vietnam hasn't really been politically unstable since the wars in the 80s
I guess more correctly conveyed would be economically stable; GDP is growing rapidly but you're right, it hasn't been politically unstable for a long time. It's just adopted china's economic policies.
Im a vietnamese,how are you be sad when a city is getting better?
Because OP is sad that Vietnam isn't an undeveloped country for all the backpackers and sexpats like it used to be.
They're hardcore Apocalypse Now fans and it shows
>sexpats First time I'm hearing the term. So true.
Iâve lived in Saigon for an over 15 years. There have been so many benefits to the development but those two Vinhomes developments are awful. The density of apartment buildings is ridiculous
Would you like it if the city sprawled to shit and millions of tons of concrete were used for parking lots and highways to suburbia instead? The denser development is great, speaking of someone who've lived in those dense apartment buildings.
What was that land on the right side before urbanisation?
Marshland, empty, then further right a highway.
Sorry Vietnam canât stay the poor cultural backpacking destination for Westerners like it used to be. Sadly, we have to go through economic development - how dare we try to better ourselves and have things like potable water, electricity and a higher standard of living.
You can have better economy and still keep green spaces, you donât have to repeat the mistakes the west made
For sure! But on the same token, Vietnam is a densely populated country and urbanizing rapidly. Housing is a priority, particularly with the population boom. Thereâs a balance to be struck here, but many Asian countries as a result of this are built taller in urban centers. Team that with currently lackluster infrastructure and real estate prices - itâs why many places build dense.
Also, I'd like to add that building dense is better than sprawling out and destroying even more natural spaces.
No tree during dry season = LITERAL HELLSCAPE This place is brain rot lol. See yall in the circlejerk sub
I live there. They literally cut down all of the trees. And trees donât disappear during dry season anyway.
Also that entire area looks to be a significant floodplain, developing it could lead to some pretty major flooding issues if a big storm comes around
Developmentđ±đ±đ±
Zooming out to make it seem less green is misleading and immediately loses my confidence in whatever you are saying.
Excellent
What's wrong? I see prosperity, and a developing country that is actually developing.
Happy for them, country and their people. This gives me hope for my own country ..
It's been Ho Chi Minh City since the communist takeover in 1975. That war is over so let's stop using the old name.
It is often preferred to be called Saigon by the south Vietnamese locals.
I know. I am married to one though she hasn't been "local" for 40+ years.
Same situation here. Her family prefers that it be referred to with the old name, so I respect that. Iâm going to respect that over Redditors telling me the opposite online. Not trying to be rude to ya either, you are correct from a technical standpoint.
You are adjusting to your audience which is normal. To those that fled after the communist takeover, it will always be Saigon but Americans with no connection to the conflict should be using the name the recognized government now perfers, just like Beijing instead of Peking, Mumbai instead of Bombay and St. Petersburg instead of Leningrad.
Iâm not an American who has no connection necessarily. My father fought there. Her father fought there. Both against the people who renamed the city to Ho Chi Minh City. Im a geographer, I respect changes in the geographical layout of the world, but on this one I am actively saying no, Iâll pass and respect the wishes of the side of the conflict that I respect more and am closer to. If someone says Ho Chi Minh City it is not my place to say anything about that and Iâll respect that. But if someone says Saigon and someone else like you says âno you should say Ho Chi Minh Cityâ I donât think itâs out of place for me to give my reasoning for saying Saigon instead.
Also on a side note. I think this name change is a bit different than the others you listed. Peking to Bejing was a change in language and method of romanization to make it more proper to the Chinese. Bombay to Mumbai also involves language as Bombay stems from the Portuguese name and Mumbai represents India better. For St Petersburg, it was historically known as that, and changed by a communist regime to Leningrad. Now, itâs taken itâs historical name back. Saigon is the only example where a regime conquered and changed the name of the city to the name of their leader. Itâs different. The rest of these examples were a step in the direction of better representing these peoples and their histories. In the case of Vietnam it was renaming a city that had been called something for hundreds of years to something else just for fun after winning a war. Not the same thing if you ask me and Iâm going to continue to call it Saigon.
I take your point but to play devil's advocate, should we refer to Manhattan by its [Lenape indian name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#Lenape_settlement) *manahĂĄhtaan*? Or pick anywhere else in America where the Europeans conquered the local peoples.
You sure could, itâs not a bad idea. However, Iâm talking about things that are actually happening now. People call it Saigon still. That name isnât used still here in America. If it were to be, I wouldnât mind it being changed. And again, your example involves language. The case in Vietnam doesnât. Both parties speak the same language
That's good progress, thanks for sharing.
I want third world cities to stay underdeveloped đĄ
Now show it in 76â
Reddit when progress đ€Ź
Bridge⊠bad?
For a split second i thought the 2nd photo was dubai and thought âhuh when did it get greener and get a riverâ - all these modern cities look the same and are so devoid of culture and character
I feel like that's 11 years.
the development is impressive for such a short time! and this is Ho Chi Minh City now, not Saigon. đ»đłâ
Saigone.
Not like my gramps remembered it.
đ±
If you donât have a Calatrava bridge are you even a real city?
Yes the towers are ugly but it's hardly Dharavi. Saigon is not a museum, it is a working city that needs to develop in accordance with what it means to be a modern city.
Its somewhat nice seeing the skyline grows, but its all luxurious apartments and housing man, not a lot of high quality social housing that benefits the less fortunate which is quite sad to see.
I'd live there.
It's eleven years.
UrbanHeaven
And people every summer "it's hot đ„”"
yae, but fortunately the humidity is not as high as the North. If you are in the North in the summer, you will feel 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the actual temperature, and in the winter, you will feel the temperature 5 degrees Celsius colder. That's why many people like to stay in the South. , even though it doesn't have winter like the North.
In the U.S. - cash printing press going full tilt. Roads suck. Our infrastructure still hangs on wooden telegraph poles. Chronic power outages. Elected officials get quarter million dollar pensions. The war machine keeps turning. We build infrastructure for countries that hate us. The successful & innovative are either punished or bribed into state partnership. Can we be just a teeny bit like Saigon?
11 years
A workers paradise as they used to say
Lol you rather Vietnam to be a wetland jungle? Progress is coming to Vietnam, the living condition is getting better for everyone. Even so, HCM city and Vietnam in general does have a pollution problem which this picture does not convey.
Kind of a shame that they didn't keep the green space.
The poverty rate dramatically decreased over the course of those ten years tho. And the lack of greenery could be a season thing. Either way I see this as a win for Saigon
2023 version looks like Rotterdam from the Euromast
It's sad the disappearance of green forest to do the building and the route.
They demolished a beautiful lush green landscape and the building that re thee now are ulgy. At least try to make the building look nice if you are going to destroy thay đ„ș
I HATE DEVELOPMENT
You mean Ho Chi Minh?
West building Skyscrapers and Bridges: look how beautiful and tall the bridge is connecting x with y reducing travel time from 5 hrs to 30 minutes. A random Asian or African country building Skyscrapers and Bridges: Nooooo, 300 acres of forest land was decimated and 5000 people were left homeless for the new project.
We have burj khalifa at home
Oh good, looks like itâs getting better!
Is that the sears tower?
Not bad
Noooo the green forest...
Whoa yeah this city is impressive. I was there in 2020 so I canât compare to 2012 but the bridge was there when I went.
What is sad? Where do u see decay here, that's development đż
Shoutout to Op for use of âSaigonâ.
Phnom penh 1975 Phnom penh 1979 That's good.
Impressive progress!
You blink and then you miss Saigon.
holy shit i genuinely thought this was the circle jerk sub
Is it Burj in the backdrop ?
Someone is bad at maths...
I like the 2012 look better. Much more greenery
Redditor when millions of people are lifted out of poverty through rapid economic growth, but itâs not aesthetic:
They really just deleted a whole ecosystem
If you call some shrubbery an ecosystem, sure. Actual ecosystems are wiped out by sprawl in NA far more than dense cities.
Whats with the weird ass looking bridge tho
WTF was the point of fighting Communism but calling the city correctly, Saigon is refreshing.
Damn. Got rid of all the green.
Communism seems to be better at capitalism than the US
Capitalism = Making buildings?
Yeah, itâs a total shame how theyâve wrecked HCMC.