Workshop 13 - Housing and Urban Processes: Towards Sustainable Communities?

Workshop 13 - Housing and Urban Processes: Towards Sustainable Communities? Experience in Super-high-rise Office and Expected Housing Decision: the factors affecting in favor of working and living high Miryum Chung miryum@hotmail.com YoungKi Park Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation" Ljubljana, Slovenia 2-5 July 2006

Experience in Super-high-rise Office and Expected Housing Decision: the factors affecting in favor of working and living high Miryum Chung & YoungKi Park ** * Doctoral Candidate, Department of Architecture Engineering, Yonsei University, Korea ** Professor, Dept. of Architecture Engineering, Yonsei University, Korea ABSTRACT Super-tall residential buildings have been getting attention in Korea as a way to accommodate steady increase of high-quality housing needs and to provide symbolic landmark to the city. Also, the great view, high security and luxurious image appeals to designers who want to try new plans and consumers who want distinguished high-end lifestyle. But on the other hand, there are quite a number of people who feel uncomfortable living high, and the opportunity to experience it is limited because of the closed character of existing super-high-rise residential. Working experience in super-high-rise office can be an alternate way to sense living high. As buildings over 30-story tall are considered super-high-rise in Korea, a survey was performed to office workers working over 30 stories to find out how these experience affect their future housing decision, especially which aspect of the experience work positively in working and choosing high. Each experience variables were proved to have effect on the preference of working high, and the preference of super-tall office building and high floors affected the favor of living high. Respondents answered that they would choose to live higher or lower when they rent, while opted for royal floor for purchasing. Keywords: super-high-rise residential, super-high-rise office, floor level preference, housing decision 1. Introduction Since the first five-story condominium was built in 1957, the high-rise housing has been successfully established in Seoul, in contrast to Europe and America s failure of high-rise public housing in 60s and 70s. The rapid economical development caused population concentrated to metropolitan area, and the government housing policy supported quantitative housing expansion. Traditional lifestyle based on agriculture dramatically changed by industrialization, and inflow of western lifestyle accelerated it. The modern apartment presented western kitchen, bathroom and centralized heating which attracted public. The idea of living high is still controversial, but Seoul is a dense city with 10 million residents and the concentration of culture, amenities, education and public transportation make the inner city life captivating. Now the urban condominium became the most popular housing type in spite of lack of privacy and crowding. Although, the height of the condominiums rarely went over 25th floors until 90 s. Since 1990s, mixed-use super-tall residential buildings over 30-story have been getting attention around the world as a way to accommodate steady increase of urban high-quality housing needs and to provide symbolic landmark to the city. In Korea, they were supported by the government as a solution for economic slump and Central business district vacancy at night. Thirty-two multi-use super-high-rise building over 35-story tall has been built since 2000 in Seoul alone i. The great view, high security, luxurious material and new floor plan appeal to consumers who want distinguished high-end lifestyle in this high-tech era. To designers, it is an opportunity to try new plans. But on the other hand, there are still quite a number of people who feel uncomfortable living too Correspondence Address : Miryum Chung, Yonsei University, Shinchon-dong 134, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea. Tel. +82 2 21232784 E- mail:miryum@hotmail.com

high. Baik H.S and Kang, I.H.(2005) ii discussed that the story of housing block was not related with the residents health, still public perception of high-rise is influenced deeply by traditional philosophy of Qi and Fengshui that one should stay closer to the land for health. Also, worries about fire, power outrage and other possible disaster make them insecure. Since the opportunity to experience it is limited because of the short history and exclusive character of existing ones, the preconception is hard to change. Working experience in super-high-rise office can be an alternate way to sense living high. Office skyscrapers have longer history in Korea. For example, KLI 63 Building(249m, 60 floor) was built on 1985 and Trade Tower(228m, 54 floor) on 1988. Workers experience various aspects of living over 30 stories for relatively long time. They enjoy the view, feel if the height, experience the crowded lift lobby and the speed of elevator, joining emergency drill. Various factors will affect the love or dislike of super-high-rise building, and it might influence the choice of floor level in the future, consciously or unconsciously. The purpose of this research is to figure out which factors affect in favor of working in super-tall office, and how they influence the choice of floor level for future housing purchase or rent. Also, How current housing style, floor height and the satisfaction level, having elderly, the factors individuals consider important in housing purchase, number of children, children s age affect the preference of living high. In US and Australia, Superhigh-rise condominiums are for young people and empty nesters, and there is an tacit agreement of anti-child sentiment. Families with kids still live in a house with garden, out in suburb. (Sullivan, C. 2001). Korean families don t mind living in multi-story flat with young children, and one of the reason being is that they consider the educational and cultural advantage of inner city as critical. There might be different issues that people favoring super-high-rise find important in housing decision. 2. Method The definition of super-high-rise has kept changing since newer buildings are growing higher dramatically. On this study, super-high-rise office building is defined as building over 30 floors tall, and residential as over 25th story. A survey was performed to 150 office workers working over 30th floor at Star Tower and Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center, from March 6 to 12, 2006. Star Tower is located at Teheran valley, new Central Business District of Seoul, among other super-high-rise offices. Finished in 2001, this building is 43-story tall and higher floor gets better view. Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center is located in Suwon, finished in 2005 as 37-story building. The building has been occupied over 5 months when the survey was performed. It is surrounded by rather lower and quieter research complex. The quality of view would not be that different by floor level. Both buildings were selected because they are both landmarks of each area, intelligent building designed with latest technology. 132 questionnaires were collected and analyzed by SPSS v.12 and MS Excel using descriptive statistics, frequency, independent sample t-test and correlation. When the future floor level respondents want to reside was asked, purchase and rent were asked separately to find the actual floor level respondent want to live, free from the asset and investment matter. 3. The Super-high-rise residential buildings Super-high-rise residential building rose as an alternate solution for sustainability of metropolitan area around the world. The high-rise public housing experiment were considered as unhealthy environment for families, and soon living in high-rise building inner city was opt out as a residential option for the time being. In late 80 s, in US and Australia, the economic slowdown emptied some high-rise offices in downtown, which then slowly renovated into hotels and residents, showing possibilities of inner city residence. Although, it was not until 90 s that the high-rise residential building flourished, forming luxurious high-rise market in central downtown. Costello, L(2005) discusses that the image of downtown high-rise residential changed from ghetto of the poor into the playground of wealthy. For young professionals and empty-nesters, daily activities are significantly bound to urban life. Thank to recent population inflow, the downtown which was considered dangerous and dark

at night before, became liven up with restaurants, retails and cinemas which opens until late. Also, living and working inner city can cut down commuting time and fossil energy. Downtown becomes sustainable by having its own residents. Even companies which moved out before to cut down the cost are coming back to the city to cope with their workers lifestyle. For Asia, not only for these advantages, super-high-rise is considered as a way to provide housing for the highdensity cities. As Yuen(2004) stated, Hong Kong and Singapore has been building high-rise for the population, and especially in Singapore, the commitment of the government for housing is realized by providing high-rise flats. Through the in-depth interview he found out that three main attraction of high-rise are the view, breezes and the privacy. The worries are regarding safety, in particular, height phobia, safety of children and elderly, lift breakdown, although the possibility of perception and preference of height could be changed accordingly by the experience and trial. According to Emporis statistics updated on May 2006, international web DB for architectural and buildings data, South Korea is the fifth most active country worldwide in building high-rise based on 2,842 completed ones, and the third regarding visual impact of their skylines. Tower Palace Three(264m tall, 73 floors) is the 5 th tallest residential building worldwide, followed by 8 th tallest Mok-dong Hyperion I(256m, 69 floors). In Dubai, Samsung Construction Company is building Burj Dubai which will be 160 th floor tall, height still remained as secret. The height of residential building has dramatically risen up from 5 th to 73 rd floor within fifty years, and as a result, several studies about level height have been performed. Kim, S.H(1994) uncovered that even though most residents are given little control over building height when purchasing or renting, generally they are satisfied with the current living floor. About a quarter of residents always preferred living high, and the emphasis on view, ventilation and natural light or easy access to ground and perceived safety determined preference of living height. The study was performed on condominium of 19~30 floor high built between 1985~1991, and over 16 th floor was considered super-high. Yoon, Y.G(2001) analyzed residents reaction to the building height in terms of choice and preference. He summarized the floor interval preference into 7 grades, 1 st grade being 6 ~ 13th floors which is called as royal level, and the least favorite being the first and the 15 th, the uppermost story, based on the contract rate of condominium sales. His subsequent study(2002) revealed that the royal level depends on not only height itself but also the building arrangement, view and daylight. He pointed out that the topmost floor can be also a royal floor if the water pressure, leakage and insulation get supplemented. This problem has been most taken care of in recent-built condos. Some post occupancy evaluation has been tried regarding habitability. Although because of the exclusive character of the residents, quantitative study turned out to be almost impossible. Since the condominium is the major asset in household, residents do not want faults to be known to the outer world, and the defects are rather confidential. As a result, limited qualitative surveys are more common. Among these rare studies, Bae, J.I(2004) performed quantitative survey on 114 super-high-rise condominium residents, and argued that the residents prefer in order of transportation and location, maintenance, environmentally friendly plan, automated equipment, new concept design and economics. Also he uncovered that satisfaction level for day lighting and view is highly influenced by the floor level. Through in-depth interview, Park, Y.(2005) discussed the altered quality of habitability by the change of the residence performance, the amenity of physical and psychological aspects, the economical aspect of maintenance, neibourhood-ship, and the historicity of home and sense of value. Lee, H.H(2005) interviewed families of Seoul, Tokyo and Chicago in angle of sustainability. Also, she calculated the amount of energy load by inputting daily commute time and distance, and the result turned out that the distance is not short enough, and the city cannot be called as sustainable compact city yet. The difficulty of accessing to residents and collecting POE data prevent the feedback to architectural design. According to Park, Y.(2004) s research on practicing professionals showed that the super-high-rise residents overall preference and satisfaction were one of the five important information that they wanted but hard to obtain. Considering the long LCC of super-high-rise building, POE should be performed at least by either construction company or maintenance firm for better habitability-- follow up and feedback to design. Regarding housing decision, Han, Y.T(2005) analyzed the difference between high-rise and super-high-rise condominiums regarding general characteristics and purchasing consideration. Interestingly, he targeted questionnaire respondents to the real estate agencies and those who had extensive experience in the real estate

business. The view was found to be the most important factor in housing decision, followed by the brand image of construction companies. Meanwhile, Jung, S.M.(2005) built up POE tool for super-high-rise office building, and developed indicators for habitability. He suggested that the resting area should be well considered because going outdoors for break is not easy for super-high-rise workers. Also he argued that the outer window area with good view should be utilized by public, by making it conference room, resting area or pathway. As reviewed, many studies have been performed on super-high-rise residential and offices, but they have not been related to each other. Since super-high-rise building workers spend most of the day at work, the experience would affect housing decision, and probably vice versa. 4. Result 4.1 General characteristics of respondents Referring to Table 1, male respondents were 47% and female 53%. People in their thirties occupied 65.2%, followed by 20s 28.8% and 40s 6.1%. More than half(56%) of respondents were over manager position. Compared to Technicians and associate professionals average monthly wage, 2 million won according to Korea national statistical office, 88.7% were earning more. 44.7% were single and 55.3% were married. 98% of them were working over 35 th story. Concerning the current building, 65.9% started working in the building within a year, 1 to 2 years were 27.3%, and over 5 years were 0.8%. Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center has been occupied around 6 months when the survey was performed, and that explains why more than half of the respondents worked less than a year in the building. The length of service over 30 th story building, 2~3 years were increased to 8.3%, 3~5 years by 0.8% and over 5 years 2.3%. Average working hours were 10 hours, minimum 8 to maximum 14. Statistically meaningful difference between gender, age group, duty, monthly income, marital status, current working floor, length of service in current building and favor of working and living high has not been not found.

Table 1. General characteristics of respondents(n=132) Variables N(%) Gender Male 62(47%) Female 70(53%) Age 20s 38(28.8%) 30s 86(65.2%) 40s 8(6.1%) Position Staff 25(18.9%) Assistant Manager 33(25%) Manager 52(39.4%) General Manager 19(14.4%) Director 3(2.3%) Monthly income Less than 2 million won 13(9.8%) 2~3 million won 44(33.3%) 3~4 million won 23(17.4%) 4~5 million won 18(13.6%) Over 5 million won 32(24.2%) No answer 2(1.5%) Marital Status Single 59(44.7%) Married 73(55.3%) Current working floor 30~34 th floor 2(1.5%) 35~39 th floor 48(36.4%) Over 40 th floor 82(62.1%) The length of service in current building Less than 1 year 87(65.9%) 1~2 years 36(27.3%) 2~3 years 8(6.1%) 3~5 years 0(0%) Over 5 years 1(0.8%) The length of service over 30 th story Less than 1 year 82(62.1%) building 1~2 years 35(26.5%) 2~3 years 11(8.3%) 3~5 years 1(0.8%) Over 5 years 3(2.3%) 4.2. Preference of working high and affecting variables Asked by Likert 5-scale, the mean value for preference of super-high-rise office building were 2.47(SD=1.182), Preference of service of 30th floor if super-high-rise building is provided, 2.89(SD= 1.332). As Figure 1 shows, the number of respondents who wanted to work in a super-high-rise office building were rather low(24%, much and very much were added), but if they had to work in super-high-rise building without choice, 52% wanted to work on high floors over 30th story.

Figure 1. Preference of working high 45 40 35 30 Frequency 25 20 Preference of super-high-rise Offcie building Preference of service over 30th floor if super-high-rise building is provided 15 10 5 0 Not at all A little Fairly Much Very much To find factors that influence the preference of super-high-rise office building and inclination of working over 30 th floor if super-high-rise building is provided, the response variables were analyzed by simple correlation, calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. As shown on Table 2, the result turned out that all the variables were related to the preference of high-rise. Preference of super-high-rise office building and preference of service over 30 th floor if super-high-rise building is provided were significantly related(coefficient=.735, p<0.01) too. When workers had a view at the conference room or rest area, when they could see the view while walking around the office, when they have the pride of working in super-high-rise building and knowledge of evacuation route on emergency showed normal correlation. Good view that can be seen from the seat, Enjoyment of view at least 3 times a day, not stuffy, using neighborhood amenities had week correlation. Worries about health were proved as normal negative correlation, and waiting time for elevator, family and friend s worries about fire or other emergency showed week negative correlation. Especially, by asking different question about views, it was discovered that if the view can be shared by many of the office workers the effect to favoring super-high-rise became higher. Table 2. Correlation analysis between preference of working high and different variables Preference of super-high-rise office building Preference of service over 30 th floor if super-high-rise building is provided Pearson Correlation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Sig. (2-tailed) N Coefficient Coefficient Good view at the conference room or rest area.465**.000 132.416**.000 132 The room got the view but not visible from the individual seat.432**.000 130.393**.000 130 Good view that can be seen from the seat.361**.000 131.317**.000 131 Enjoy view at least 3 times a day.364**.000 132.309**.000 132 Not stuffy.359**.000 132.240**.006 132 Waiting time for elevator being too long -.336**.000 131 -.289**.001 131 Usage of amenities around the building.244**.005 132.295**.001 132 Proud of working in super-high-rise building.452**.000 132.390**.000 132 Family and friends worry about working in super-high-rise building -.277**.001 132 -.364**.000 132 Worries about fire or other possible disaster -.239**.006 132 -.225**.009 132

Knowledge of evacuation route on emergency.414**.000 132.403**.000 132 Working high affect negatively on health -.433**.000 132 -.403.000 132 Preference of super-high-rise office building 1. 132.735**.000 132 Preference of service over 30 th floor if superhigh-rise building is provided.735**.000 132 1. 132 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). When choosing floor level, mid floor between 6~15 were most favored. This result confirms Yoon, Y.K(2001) s precedent study. When respondents chose floor level for purchase, most of them wanted mid floor(83 respondents, 62.9%) and only 37.1% chose higher or lower floors. On the contrary, when they were asked to select height for rent, the distribution spread out more. Only 3.85% of respondents wanted to buy a condo over 25 th floor, but when it comes to rent, 9.85% responded to rent those floors. (Figure 2.) This explains that when people buy safe floor level because of the finance risk, but if they are free from it, they opt for what they really want, trying some adventure. Favor of high office floor and opting for high residential floor turned out to be related. Between the preference of super-high-rise office building, inclination of working over 30 th floor if super-high-rise building is provided and floor height to purchase in the future showed normal correlation(pearson correlation coefficient=.401 and.424 each, p<0.01, two tailed). With floor height to rent in the future, it proved to have week correlation(pearson correlation coefficient=.376,.312 each, p<0.01, two tailed.) Figure 2. Favor of housing floor height 90 80 70 60 Frequency 50 40 Floor hight to purchase in the future Floor height to rent in the future 30 20 10 0 1~2nd floor 3~5th floor 6~15th floor 16~25th floor Over 26th floor 4.3 Group difference on preference of working and living high by building location and design Two buildings, Star tower and Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center are different in location and overall design which would affect worker s experience. Independent sample T-test did not prove any of the significant difference in general characteristics between two groups. In the case of Star tower, overall satisfaction on the view was good, and looked out the scene more often than those of Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center. They were more proud of working in superhigh-rise building, more prepared for emergency evacuation. For the latter building, workers were unsatisfied with views and waiting time for elevator. They less used the close amenities, and it seems to be due to the distance to each amenities and poor public transportation compared to the former building. They were less proud of working high(mean=2.13). They did not perceive escape route that well(mean=2.13), and reason can be

explained by the fact that they moved rather recently. Knowledge of evacuation route on emergency is correlated with the length of service in current building(correlation coefficient=.258, N=132) and the length of service over 30 th story building(correlation coefficient=.377, N=132) at 99% confidence level. The longer one work in super-high-rise building, the better he perceived the refuge route. This overall satisfaction influenced the preference of super-high-rise office building and favor of working over 30 th floor if super-high-rise building is provided, and as a result, Star tower s preference score turned out to be higher than that of Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center. Figure 3. Evaluation of experience in super-high-rise office by group 5 4 Total Likert scale 3 Star Tower 2 Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center 1 Good view at the conference room or rest area The room got the view but not visible from the individual seat Good view that can be seen from the seat Enjoy view at least 3 times a day Not stuffy Waiting time for elevator being too long Usage of amenities around the building Proud of working in super-high-rise building Family and friends worry about working in super-high-rise building Worries about fire or other possible disaster Knowledge of evacuation on emergency Working high affect negatively on health Preference of super-high-rise office building Preference of service over 30th floor if super-high-rise building is provided For desired floor level for future purchase, respondents working at Star Tower favored high-rise slightly more, but two groups were quite similar. But when desired floor level for future rent was asked, the graph showed distinct difference. The percent of respondents of Star Tower who wanted to rent housing higher 26 th were 14.63%, whereas latter building s respondents were only 2%. The preference of high-rise influenced the actual desired floor level for the future.

Figure 4. Desired floor level for future purchase Figure 5. Desired floor level for future rent 80 70 70 60 60 50 % 50 40 Total St ar T ower % 40 Total Star Tower 30 Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center 30 Samsung Electronics Research & Development Center 20 20 10 10 0 1~2nd floor 3~5th floor 6~15th floor 16~25th floor Over 26th floor 0 1~2nd floor 3~5th floor 6~15th floor 16~25th floor Over 26th floor 4.4. Type of current housing, floor level and contentment degree, factors to consider for housing decision and the order of importance, the influence of the elderly and children family members to super-high-rise housing decision The type of current residence varied. High-rise condominium(67.94%) was the most popular residence type, and townhouse(18.2%), multi-use super-high-rise(6%), officetel(5%), house(5%) were followed. Satisfaction of residential type was relatively high(mean=3.52, SD=.82 by Likert 5-level scale), and 75% of high-rise condominium responded that they were satisfied. iii Only 10% of Townhouse residents, 5.19% of house residents were contented with their current housing type. Current floor level was diverse from first to fiftieth floor. 1~2 nd floor(25%), 3~5 th floor(24.24%), 6~5 th (43.18%), 15~25(6.06%), 25~30 th (0.76%)and over 40 th (0.76%) are the ratio, and 70.45% of the respondents were happy with their floor level. 23.48% wanted to move higher and 6.06% wanted lower floor. On the contrary to Kim, S.H(1994) s conclusion and Korean architectural firm s perception, those living on 1~2 nd floor, 79% were contented with their level. As shown on Figure 6, when asked to choose 5 major considerations for choosing housing, convenient amenities, close public transportation, investment prospect, clean air, nice view, adjacent park and school group were selected in order of importance. When only respondents favoring to live higher than 26th floor were analyzed, as displayed in Figure 6 and 7, the result were similar, but security was added. Interestingly, not a single respondent considered safe retreat route for emergency among 5 most important factors. Correlation analysis revealed that neither the existence of the elderly family member nor children s age influenced the floor level that respondents wanted to live, which still coincide with Kim, S.H.(1994) s result. The number of children and the floor level respondents wanted to rent had weak negative correlation(pearson Correlation coefficient=-.0.244, p<0.01, N=75). When renting condominium, families with more kids are more likely to choose lower floor.

Figure 6. Respondents major consideration for choosing housing Security Floor plan maintenance fee Nice view Indoor public space Close public transportation Noise from outside Privacy Safe retreat route for emergency Adjacent park Clean air Convenient amenities Investment prospect School group 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Frequency figure 7. Respondents major consideration who wish to purchase over 26th floor flat Security Floor plan maintenance fee Nice view Indoor public space Close public transportation Noise from outside Privacy Safe retreat route for emergency Adjacent park Clean air Convenient amenities Investment prospect School group 0 1 2 3 4 5 frequency figure 8. Respondents major consideration who wish to rent over 26 th floor flat

Security Floor plan maintenance fee Nice view Indoor public space Close public transportation Noise from outside Privacy Safe retreat route for emergency Adjacent park Clean air Convenient amenities Investment prospect School group 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 frequency 5. Conclusion This research was aimed to find the influence of experience in super-high-rise building to the preference of super-tall building and the choice of floor level for future housing purchase or rent. Other factors affecting housing decision were also discussed. The result revealed that the preference of super-tall building and high floors affected the favor of living high. Each experience variables were proved to have effect on the preference of working high, and the main variables were the view, pride of working in super-high-rise building and knowledge of evacuation route, not feeling stuffy and using neighborhood amenities. Worries about health, waiting time for elevator, family and friends worry about fire or other emergency showed negative correlation. Regarding on view, respondents favored working high more when the view were shared in conference room or rest even though they can t see the scenery at individual desk. Insuring the good view where everybody can share would be very important for the satisfaction of workers servicing in super-high-rise building. Furthermore these experiences get related to perception on general high-rise building, including residence. Regular evacuation practice would lower the worries of emergency, resulting contentment and proud of working high. Preference of super-high-rise office building were rather low, but when the building were provided without choice, more than half of respondents replied that they wanted to work over 30 th story. When Floor height for purchase in the future were asked separately, most respondents favored royal level(6~15 th floor), but when it comes to rent, the people who wanted to rent floors over 26 th floor were 2.5 times more than those to purchase. Also those who wanted to rent lower floor were 1.4 times more that those wanted to purchase. This result suggests that when the multi-use super-high-rise building is designed, other options such as leasing suite or resident hotel could be applied on floors where less people want to purchase. Can the super-high-rise housing take root as one of sustainable urban housing form in Korea? Or would it fall into another gigantic slum in the future? Koreans have adapted well to rapid housing changes, so if the design of buildings cope with the consumers need well enough, they would keep prefer to live there. What matters would be the active feedback of information from residents and staffs to designers and maintenance companies. The good example would be Tower Palace 1 to 3 series in Seoul, 7 tower complex finished from year 2002 to 2004 successively. The problem found after the first building were researched and new solution were directly applied to the next. As a result, 73-floor-tall Tower Palace 3 is considered as one of the most successful model in Korea

so far. Also the super-high-rise office and multi-use residence have a lot of characters in common, mutual data sharing would be beneficial to each other. The super-high-rise building is expected to make the utmost use of the limited land that we have, leaving more open land, and enliven the sustainable inner city. Note i Han, Y.(2005) A comparative study on the characteristics of Purchase between high-rise and super-high-rise apartment, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea. p.155 ii They concluded that interior humidity of winter was deeply related with the health condition of residents, not the story of housing block. iii Respondence frequency of Much(4) and Very much(5) were added. Acknowledgement This research was financially supported by the Ministry of Construction & Transportation of South Korea and Korea Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning, and the authors are grateful to the authorities for their support. References Bae, J.I., An, B.U. and Kim, S.M.(2004) A Study on the Post Occupancy Evaluation of Super High-Rise Apartment, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2004.9, pp.127-134 Baik, H.S. and Kang, I.H.(2005) An Analysis of the Adults Health and It s relation to Housing Environment in Super High-rise Apartment, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2005.2, pp.11-20 Cho, J.S.(2004) A Comparative Analysis of High-Rise Residential Planning with the Changes of the Times in Seoul, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2004.10, pp.51-58 Costello, L.(2005), From Prisons to Penthouses: The Changing Images of High-Rise Living in Melbourne, Housing Studies, 2005.1, pp.49-62 Han, Y.T., Kang, B.S., Kim and J.W(2005) A Comparative Study on the Characteristics of Purchase between High-rise and Super-high-rise Apartment, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2005.11, pp.155-162 Jeong, C.Y., Kim, S.K., Kang, B.S. and Kim J.W.(2005) A Comparative Study on the Developing Trends and Characteristics of High-rise Housing at World Wide Cities, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2005.12, pp.193-200 Jung, S.M.(2005) Conceptual Approach to Workspace Planning Indicators for the Habitability of High-Rise Office Building, Seoul National University. Kim, S.H., Kim, S.A. and Min, B.H.(1994) Residents Satisfaction with Height and Choice of Living Floor in High-rise Apartment, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 1994.6, pp.21-31 Lee, H.H(2005) Daily Living in High rise building, the 5 th Symposium of KSTBF, 2005.9, pp. 15-23 Park, Y., Kang, I.H. and Kim, H.J(2004) A POE Process Model for Super-Tall Residential Building, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2005.11, pp.137-147 Park, Y., Kang, I.H. and Kim, H.J(2004) A Study on the Attitude of Practicing Professionals to the Information for Super Tall Residential Building Projects, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2004.12, pp.115-122 Shin, J.J., Suh, K.Y., Heo, J.Y., Kim, H.Y., Yi, S.C.(2001) A Study on the Planning Characteristics of Superhigh-rise Apartment in terms of Livability, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2001.3, pp.11-22 Sullivan, C.C.(2001) Legacy in limbo, Building design & Construction, 2001.2, pp.26-32 www.emporis.com Yoon, Y.G.(2001) An Analysis of the Residents preference and choice to the building direction and height of living floor in Apartment House, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2001.10 Yoon, Y.G.(2002) An Analysis of the Residents preference to the building height of Living floor in Apartment

House, Journal of the architectural institute of Korea, 2002.6, pp.3-10 Yuen, B.(2005) Romancing the high-rise in Singapore, Cities, v.22 no.1