Talk:Omotesando Hills

Need Citations/Verifiability

"Residents, notably Mark Devlin, publisher of Metropolis magazine, have complained about the development's monolithic design, overtly commercial nature, and lack of concern for the neighboring environment."

This criticism is going to need some work:

Please cite "Residents" - was there some sort of residents group or the like formed? A campaign? Is there something citable out there?

Please show Mark Devlin's notability.

Please source the statement "...have complained about the development's monolithic design, overtly commercial nature, and lack of concern for the neighboring environment." David Lyons 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One-sided. The masses of Japanese and tourists that visit the complex each day may not prove that it is worthy of praise, and at least show it is not as horrific as this page would suggest. The develop does not occupy most of Omotesando. The boulevard is about a kilometer long, perhaps more. "250m" is the figure for the length of the structure that appears in the Japanese wikipedia page. 222.145.181.243 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please find a citation that says the building is a success measured by the number of visitors. Please also note that Wikipedia should not be used as a source. Sparkzilla 14:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not a facelift"? See http://web-japan.org/trends/lifestyle/lif060127.html among other reports that refer to it as such. This page should be adjusted so that it has better balance. See, for example, the cited NYTimes article: http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/travel/15tokyo.html?8dpc . 61.199.43.149 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite is refering to the Omotesando area getting a facelift through the construction of two new shopping areas. The demolition of one building, and replacement with another, is not a facelift. The work on Omotesando station however, is a facelift.

Please refrain from speculating on the identity of other users (especially speculating based on other people's speculations). Attack the article not the editor.

You will note there are four articles cited in the article that state the construction was controversial, not just Devlin's op-ed.

If you want to adjust the balance of the article please simply add information that is properly cited. Good luck finding it.Sparkzilla 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"The work on Omotesando station however, is a facelift." That's ridiculous. The station development is the one that took place underground, making almost no changes to the scenery. "there are four articles cited in the article that state the construction was controversial, not just Devlin's op-ed." Interestingly, the Japanese and Chinese articles seem to be very well done and make little or no mention of the criticism that is overbearing in this article. "Attack the article not the editor". Yes, but not when the issue is evident abuse that spreads over many pages. Does it really have to be spelled out further?Ihamiham 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the strong impression that the past three or four comments have been by the same person? Your comments would have more credibility if they did not have the same agenda and lack of posting history that is shared by other recent editors. You will not be able to remove properly cited information, so as I said above, find citations for positive or neutral information about the development and add it to the article if you can. Sparkzilla 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Links to articles in Metropolis magazine are dead. David Lyons 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Links have been fixed. There was a group that was formed to save the buildings but I dont have the citation so I made it clearer.

I would also appreciate it if you did not stalk me on every article I edit. Thank you. Sparkzilla 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hills?

Actually, Omotesando Hills is built on a hill, so why does the article claim there is no connection? Jpatokal 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cause the person who wrote that stuff (me) was thinking of various ヒルズes, e.g. "Ark Hills", which is at the bottom of a hill. I suppose you could say that they all refer to hills, what with Omotesandou being at the top of one, Ark being at the bottom of one, etc. Tokyo is so hilly (or is if you have modest criteria for a hill) that there's always a hill somewhere. But this in turn seems to make the "hill" reference completely vacuous. Incidentally, it now occurs to me that ヒルズ may be a term exclusive to Mori; I can't think of a non-Mori ヒルズ. -- Hoary 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion of "Hillzu" is original research WP:OR. If you do not have a citation for the meaning please remove it from the page. Thank you Sparkzilla 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR talks of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. Where's any of that? Or do you really require evidence for previous publication of the stunning aperçu that Mori's various ヒルズes have such disparate relationships to actual hills that the term just means "development"? It's just a matter of very simple observation. You may of course say that such observation is in the mind of the observer, and is therefore subjective; in addition, this particular observer could have perceptual disorders, be a liar, or even be completely insane. You could leave it, knowing that -- unlike, say, the dark side of the moon -- central Tokyo is easily accessible to a lot of WP editors, who can check this for themselves. Or you may wish to delete this stuff. Deletion could leave the innocent reader to wonder if the form of the building somehow resembles that of hills, or where the plurality of Omotesandō's hills comes from. If you think that would be an improvement to the article, go ahead and delete. -- Hoary 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your new text is fine. Sparkzilla 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Omotesandohills.jpg

Image:Omotesandohills.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image has been removed. -- Sparkzilla talk! 10:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ヒルズ

I would like to see more specifics about the shops inside, the layout, and especially about the apartments. Thanks. --70.142.48.213 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)