Hong Kong is a port city conveniently located (politically and physically) between China and the rest of the world.

To compare a uniquely positioned city like that to the entire US population (which, for example, includes Detroit) is not particularly meaningful.

Replace the US with San Francisco or NYC and the list still applies.

Now take Manhattan Island, politically and physically isolate it, restrict freedom of movement between it and the rest of the country, and shut the rest of the country off from international trade for a few decades and you'll begin to approach an apples-to-apples comparison with HK.

Nitpick all you want, d_burfoot is right.

As Manhattan drags the West into the mire, Hong Kong leads the East's ascent.

Now compare GDP/km^2:

USA: 1,773,047 USD/km^2 HONG KONG: 63,633,823 USD/km^2.

Huh. Hong kong has almost 36x the GDP density... With comparable GDP per capita. Is that significant?

Hong Kong is a city state, so it isn't very comparable to another country. HK and Singapore models don't really scale out of their limited scope.

The British did colonize more places. Places like Malaysia, India, etc., that aren't as prosperous and developed as Hong Kong and Singapore. Much of Britain itself isn't as prosperous and developed as Hong Kong and Singapore. Obviously it wasn't a case of the British simply building HK and Singapore. Singapore wasn't a very prosperous and developed place when the British left in the early 60s. It became so subsequently under local elites like Lee Kuan Yew. Hong Kong and Singapore were built by its locals, who were mostly Chinese but also included Indians, Malays, and others.

The British also colonized the Middle East and Africa. So why are those places hellholes?

Indeed. The best things about Hong Kong are all colonial legacy.