6 ms·

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

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.

dfc 14y ago
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.
- barrkel 14y ago
  False dichotomy much? 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.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    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.
    - plqa 14y ago
      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'.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        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.
        yardie 14y ago
        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.
  - nmridul 14y ago
    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.
    - yardie 14y ago
      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.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
olalonde 14y ago
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".
- mc32 14y ago
  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.
ww520 14y ago
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.
- jseliger 14y ago
  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-Healthier/dp/159420277X/?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...
- smoyer 14y ago
  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.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    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.
rayiner 14y ago
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.
if_else 14y ago
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.

dfc 14y ago

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.

barrkel 14y ago
False dichotomy much? 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.
- rayiner 14y ago
  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.
  - plqa 14y ago
    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'.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      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.
      - yardie 14y ago
        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.
- nmridul 14y ago
  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.
  - yardie 14y ago
    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.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

olalonde 14y ago

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".

mc32 14y ago
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.

ww520 14y ago

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.

jseliger 14y ago
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-Healthier/dp/159420277X/?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...
smoyer 14y ago
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.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  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.

rayiner 14y ago

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.

if_else 14y ago

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.