> significantly more efficient, which is why cities get dense.
But it's not.
Look at most cities in the world besides a few which are well know to have a broken/unhealthy local economic...
Do most of them have sky scrapers all over the place?
Or do they mostly have 5-10 Story buildings with a view ~80m buildings, even less 80-150m buildings, and hardly any building larger then that?
Then look at all the large 200+m sky scrapers, how many of them do have unused space? How many are all office space and only profitable due to broken tax regulations? And how many stopped being profitable when they became older? Also look at the cost of tearing down (replacing) or reconstructing a sky scraper compared to a regular building and look into how often the company which build the sky scraper did carry the cost?
Also look at all the super high sky scrapers and consider how many where purely build to show power?
I don't have anything against sky scrapers, but there is a point at which they stop making sense and as far as I can tell it should be somewhat but not much above 150m, or maybe even lower.
And yes without question there are cities in which huge sky scrapers are always economical the best choice, but I believe most of such cities have a broken/unhealthy.
Sure, even for this there are exceptions. Like in countries where (flat, accessible) land is generally a sparse resource, like Singapore.
But it's not.
Look at most cities in the world besides a few which are well know to have a broken/unhealthy local economic...
Do most of them have sky scrapers all over the place?
Or do they mostly have 5-10 Story buildings with a view ~80m buildings, even less 80-150m buildings, and hardly any building larger then that?
Then look at all the large 200+m sky scrapers, how many of them do have unused space? How many are all office space and only profitable due to broken tax regulations? And how many stopped being profitable when they became older? Also look at the cost of tearing down (replacing) or reconstructing a sky scraper compared to a regular building and look into how often the company which build the sky scraper did carry the cost?
Also look at all the super high sky scrapers and consider how many where purely build to show power?
I don't have anything against sky scrapers, but there is a point at which they stop making sense and as far as I can tell it should be somewhat but not much above 150m, or maybe even lower.
And yes without question there are cities in which huge sky scrapers are always economical the best choice, but I believe most of such cities have a broken/unhealthy.
Sure, even for this there are exceptions. Like in countries where (flat, accessible) land is generally a sparse resource, like Singapore.