I don't get the obsession with building skyscrapers in rapidly developing countries and regions like Dubai or China. Especially China, where they have plenty of space in the hinterlands, yet all the wealth concentrates in the coastal regions. I thought a socialist-planned era of capitalism would know better than that.
That said, the USA stopped having the largest skycrapers because they stopped making sense in a world where technology can close even the biggest physical gaps.
High density buildings are much more environmentally friendly than suburban sprawl. People need to travel less to work, shopping, seeing friends, thus less cars, less oil used, less roads needed to be built. Mass transit actually is profitable and sustainable. It's easier to build out network type of infrastructure. Broadband is easier to build and cell towers covers more. Services are centralized to cover more people, less fire house, less hospital, less police.
People need to understand this and often don't. If you're interested in the research behind the environmental friendliness and economic importance of density, see Edward Glaeser's book The Triumph of the City: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...
I agree except for the "cell towers covers more" statement. Cell tower coverage is actually greatest in areas like Iowa. Cell towers could in theory cover more people in a dense city, but you end up putting in more towers for both capacity and RF reasons.
- Channel capacity remains approximately the same per user, so in high density areas, you need more towers.
- RF signals are heavily reflected and/or shielded by the vast "concrete canyons" of a modern city, so more towers are needed to eliminate shadows.
Well, true. Cell tower coverage is actually very good in the kalahari desert. They build huge towers that cover cells way bigger than anything you'll find in any city. But those patch-cables they need from the tower to the backbone :). I think the OP meant something along the line "it's easier to supply a sufficiently dense network" since you probably need more antennas but in the end, it's easier to put up those antennas since you have a reliable cable connection close by.
If I have to choose between giant skyscrapers and massive suburban sprawl I will opt for the 100 floor elevator trip over the 15 minute car ride any day.
I don't think skyscrapers (usually commercial use) are particularly correlated with suburban sprawl (residential use) one way or the other. You can have one with or without the other.
I think the gated / fortress mentality of upmarket high-rise accommodation is corrosive to a sense of community. I'm more in favour of walkable streets than either of short car or elevator trips.
We might differ in our definition of "skyscraper" but most of the densest US cities (NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston) have lots of high-rise residential housing (300+ feet). In my neighborhood here in Chicago nearly all the skyscrapers are residential.
High-rises do not have to be at odds with walkable streets or a sense of community. High-density residential housing can more easily support neighborhood shops and restaurants. People meet each other in their building gyms. Kids can have friends in the same building and visit them without needing to be escorted.
I would be very sad if I had to bring my children up in these kind of living conditions. I would much prefer a nice house in an area where we can enjoy nature a little but also be close enough to a city so we can access its services.
I had a great garden as a kid and access to one of the UK"s nicest woodland areas. I would be sad to not be able to give my children the same just so they can have 'friends in the same building'.
To each his own, but what makes you think you can't enjoy nature in the city? I had a backyard growing up, but my daughter in Chicago is going to be walking distance from a 1,200 acre park with a zoo, a duck pond, and a flower conservatory, not to mention a beautiful lake to boat in.
I personally find suburbs tremendously lonely and isolated, especially for families where the parents don't have time to drive kids to activities and friends. I grew up in a suburb and since I was old enough to take care of my little brother the two of us would just hang around at our house until our parents came home. Weekends became a tiresome exercise in our parents driving us around to activities and friends. And my parents had very little social life outside the family because there was nobody we could just "pop over" to see. Social activities had to be coordinated evenings and with everyones' busy schedules it happened once every month or two.
And once the kids are old enough to drive--well I don't want my daughter driving. The great thing about cities for people with money is that they can buy security from the risks of city living: crime, etc. Upper-middle class white or asian kids are about the safest demographic in a city. But you can't buy yourself security from the risks of the suburbs. Teenagers with cars are the most endangered demographic in a suburb.
Proximity to green spaces is usually set by income. It's great that you are in within walking distance of a 1200 acre park with a zoo, duckpond, and conservatory. But what about someone making 1/2 to 1/4 your income? Shouldn't they have access to these things as well?
I grew up poor in the city and I grew up middle class in the suburbs. Turns out my single mom didn't make more money, it just went further in the suburbs. We even had a more active social life after leaving the city. We weren't allowed to go to the park because drug dealers and users had basically over ran it. I found a used condom in the sandpit and asked my mom to blow it up because I thought it was a balloon. After that incident we moved to a sunny suburb with a clean swimming pool, parks in every direction, and shopping center within walking distance.
The city is a great place to live if you have money, for everyone else the burbs aren't so bad.
It's definitely true that the city is better for people with more money, but people in cities are usually paid more too. And the crossover point comes at different points in different cities. Here in Chicago, you don't need to be rich to afford an apartment in a tree-lined neighborhood near a park and a mile or so from the lake. It's even more true in smaller cities like Syracuse, etc, or satellite cities like Evanston or Aurora.
Who's talking about suburbs? That's still thinking in a city mindset.
I grew up in a 2500 person country side village in England. That village had everything we needed and it was only 30 minutes bus ride away from the neatest large town. It was also 45 mins train ride away from the nearest city.
I hate to break it to you but there is about 100 square metres of "nature" in the UK. All those lovely rolling hills and hedgerows are about as natural as a betting shop under a multistorey carpark. There hasn't been much in the way of nature in this country for about a thousand years. Just enjoy what we have.
Not from England, but true dat. Once coal in England became cheaper than wood as a fuel source, the trees breathed a sigh of relief (more so once the British fleet switched from wooden construction to iron hulls).
Having grown up in the suburbs (with plenty of real woodlands around), I have the exact opposite feeling. The community, diversity, tolerance, and learning opportunities of a dense city are better than any suburb or small town. As far as nature goes, I just went fishing with my son the other day (in an abandoned quarry, funnily enough). My wife, who grew up in the countryside of U.K. feels the same way.
Singapore is one country that would prove you wrong. Residential Skyscrapers every where with common community areas, beautiful parks and malls at walkable distance and a good public transport system. I don't see it corroding the community.
Singapore is also an island where land is it's most valuable resource. Just across the causeway Singaporeans are increasingly buying property in Malaysia. So yes they have what you list, but even they want more.
High population density has a lot of advantages and it's actually one of the things I like most about China. I think most Chinese would dislike living in a low density area. In fact, when I show pictures of Montreal to Chinese/Hong Kong people their first impression is that "it looks boring".
High density has advantages of scale, i.e efficiency. On the other hand, when things break, they break massively I.e. a power outage, a garbage strike, etc. Also, infectious diseases propagate faster.
Still, I would take density over sprawl, if push came to shove. I wish San Fracisco would adopt some of the Chinese practicality when it comes to urbanism --not the ugliness of the uniform apartment block buildings, but the allowing of change and growth.
Super-tall skyscrapers don't make much sense with existing technology, but there is plenty of residential skyscraper development in the US. My neighborhood here in Chicago has several under construction right now.
I'm not really sure why you'd build anything other than skyscrapers. They're extremely efficient, and high-density development saves a lot of money on road construction.
It is mainly because of the infrastructures. It is a developing country with massive population, where the infrastructure is poor(er) outside cities. It is all part of cycle.
That said, the USA stopped having the largest skycrapers because they stopped making sense in a world where technology can close even the biggest physical gaps.