>Landscrapers make sense where real-estate prices aren't so high. Except when real-estate prices aren't high, you're usually super far away from industry and p

>Landscrapers make sense where real-estate prices aren't so high. Except when real-estate prices aren't high, you're usually super far away from industry and population... the things that drive up real-estate prices. If proximity to related companies wasn't important, why does Silicon Valley or Hollywood even exist instead of a peppering of low-cost buildings across the midwest? We already know the answer. Companies like Amazon can afford to "create" new hotspots and ship engineers there. Literal tiny towns with a gigantic new data center that can attract "support" business like new restaurants. But for most companies, there's a benefit to being around other companies. (e.g. My software company buys hardware and services hard drive failures from an IT company across the street.) And what happens when you have lots of companies around? The competition for space drives prices up. And what happens when so many companies want that space? The buildings start moving upward into the sky. It's simple economics. Land is valuable. Especially in tiny overpopulated places like England and many EU states. This should not be surprising or new knowledge.