> I have the opposite opinion; skyscrapers minimize the amount of land used for housing, so they are fantastic at reducing land impact. I don't think land impa

> I have the opposite opinion; skyscrapers minimize the amount of land used for housing, so they are fantastic at reducing land impact. I don't think land impact (assuming we're talking about the same thing) is much of an issue. Most places in Europe for example, these small towns and whatnot live quite ok with nature without having to concentrate all human activity into a city. > The lack of local agriculture is a far greater issue than just what skyscrapers enable. At least in the US (I'm sure in Europe as well) the seasonality of food is no longer a huge deal for availability because we're willing to ship produce halfway around the world, and that's a problem for both cities and suburbs. Yes but they make the problem worse. Nobody in NYC can farm, for example. I can grow a decent vegetable garden in my backyard in the suburbs (and I do). These cities also enable excess population density which require all of these things to be flown and shipped in because it's impossible to get locally. Suburbs even do a better job than this. I'm not super confident that the timeline for our electricity getting green is going to proceed at the pace required. And there are also lots of other things electric cars don't fix, like extensive amounts of roadway runoff from roads and parking lots, impact to physical habitats, higher energy use, etc. There still isn't a great heating or cooling solution that is both low energy and works in temperature extremes, The solution is to look back to what worked in the past for inspiration. Tree coverage, specific construction materials, etc. > and your US suburban homeowner would balk at buying a property without AC. Yea... and nobody is buying a condo in NYC without air conditioning or heat either.