Which Is The Highest Density?

Why do so many people want to take down condo towers?
Extra Content: / paigesaunders
Mastodon: masto.canadiancivil.com/@paige
Peertube: video.canadiancivil.com/a/paige
Get On The Fediverse! fedihost.co/
________________
References & Sources
________________
[1] www.british-history.ac.uk/rch...
[2] renx.ca/square-phillips-proje... 79,864-square-foot (rounded up to meters)
[3] goo.gl/maps/5cmWU2jkYk7S3RDC6
[4] 50m x 148.4m
[5] www.1squarephillips.ca/home (However adding the floorplans yields 525 units)
[6] montrealgazette.com/business/...
[7] • Futurama - Bender’s ap...
[8] www.1squarephillips.ca/floor-...
[9] (1762m+1651m+871m) x 3 3635m x 3
[10] www.1squarephillips.ca/news/1...
[11] 56.479m2 x 324 (units) = 18299.196
[12] 68,582m2
[13] www.lapresse.ca/maison/immobi...
[14] lesdauphins.promci.qc.ca/
[15] www.emporis.com/buildings/112...
[16] ​​www.mdpi.com/2673-8945/1/1/4/htm
[17] 138,000m2 of gross floor area * 0.84
[18] www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/abou... 2,640m2
[19] zola.planning.nyc.gov/l/lot/1... (lot: 34,470 sq ft / 3202.3678 sq m) (building: 584,590 sq ft / 54310.1882 sq m)
[20] parispropertygroup.com/blog/2...
[21] • MY 1300€/$1500 PARIS A...
[22] fullstackeconomics.com/how-lu...
[23] www.rbcroyalbank.com/mortgage...
[24] app.upky.io/market-price
[25] censusmapper.ca/maps/1535?ind...
[26] www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily...

[@bopete3204]

Yeah, it's crazy how people are upset that foreigners own condos. We've managed to make housing an export good and collect a ton of tax revenues and potentially create a ton of jobs but instead people's dislike of seeing towers go up is so great we limit development.

[@pastelshoal]

The problem is that we are currently in the middle of a housing availibility and affordability crisis. Occupation rates are important under those circumstances, especially when there are people who live in the country that want these places. If we had a housing surplus this would be less of a problem

[@CoryAlbrecht]

@@pastelshoal And foreign ownership is very, very low and doesn't have a different vacancy rate than Canadian-owned. It's a xenophobic red herring.

[@lemairel1792]

Foreign capital can have an inflationary effect on housing. Foreign buyers buy up housing stock because they see it as a secure long term investment. This can drive up prices for locals and for renters. Sometimes the invested capital comes from oil rich countries or from money laundering meaning we indirectly help to finance those operations while they can be seen as unfair competition. Im not saying we shouldnt allow any foreign capital investment. Just saying its not only positives and that more regulation can be good if done properly.

[@CoryAlbrecht]

@@lemairel1792 It can, if it is done in large enough numbers. However, the Canadian cities with the highest rates of foreign ownership are still less than 4% of the housing stock so the inflationary pressure they provide through speculation is negligible compared to hoe-grown speculators and would not be a problem in a "normal", non-crisis market.

[@lemairel1792]

Does this take into account the foreign investment through corporations? And I agree that it isnt a problem in non-crisis markets, but what about when crisis hits? Foreign investment is not the main responsible for the astronomical prices of housing today, but I think regulation can still help to prevent money laundering and other accessibility issues. My point is that foreign investment can have positive but also negative impacts.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

This is a wonderful video. When people say that towers aren’t dense, they often point to a “tower in a park” (or “tower in a parking lot”) development where the density isn’t as high as you’d expect given the height. The thing they’re forgetting though is that the exact same principle applies to every type of housing. Detached homes, Montreal multiplexes, and mid-rise apartments all vary quite a bit in density depending on how much of the lot you actually use for housing as opposed to grass, cars, or whatever else. So it's true that towers aren't always dense, but all other factors equal, building higher does in fact mean more housing/density.

[@bopete3204]

People can just look at a map of census tract densities and the densest ones are exactly where the towers are.

[@killerspade]

Yeah I think a lot of critics used to suburban living probably default to thinking about the towers in the park that were prolific during the latter half of the twentieth century in otherwise suburban cities. This generally misses why those types of buildings fell out of style.

[@betula2137]

In some city centres, large portions of blocks were bulldozed to support the car-dependent access of sprawl, which is a humongous waste of the most valuable land of a city. Skyscrapers going up in high-intensity areas to counterbalance large amounts of wasteful sprawl, (and this was said in the video): Which are usually associated with CBDs in Anglo-countries, financial districts. A lot of the towers in these areas are commercial (because it's where you put them), such as office towers. This decreases the perceived residential density of whatever areas skyscrapers are in (stereotypes) those cities which have only extremes of density and little transition. For example, Sydney's CBD has roughly 20,000 people/km^2, similar to Paris, but it is because Paris has residential instead of offices on average, and its financial district is further off and not the centre of interest simultaneously. So, Sydney could have kept its traditional centre, and instead built a financial district slightly off; towers could go up in the old centre, but they could be more residential, thus creating the densest part of the city. Medium density provides everything in between, so a lot of variation and a lot of possibilities for housing

[@antonburdin9756]

Yes, you can have dense high rise communities, but most of those are High Rise Slums, you can find them in Hong Kong, SEA, Russia. You are showing us Towers surrounded buy the sea of suburb stile development, is it much different from a “ Tower in a park” concept? Talking about Manhattan - why you are not mentioning concept of Air Rights which serves as de-facto warranty of view preservation for buyers on Billionaires Row?

[@someidiot4570]

being an environmentalist lefty, it shocks me how little thought others like me put into their takes on skyscrapers. it really is mostly a feeling thing for most people. great video as always.

[@ricardoheurich7824]

It makes no sense to be against skyscrapers and pro wast suburbs with zoning restrictions.

[@BeBenNova]

Great video! I live in one of the building featured multiple times in this video, it's 103 affordable housing units with half of them being subsidized owned by the SOCAM, for someone who's extremely poor a high density building like this has been a literal life saver, they don't all have to be expensive condo towers with pools and gyms, some people just need a cheap place to live

[@PaigeMTL]

Which one is it?

[@BeBenNova]

@@PaigeMTL 10:40 back left it's called Habitation 21

[@buitenzorg5970]

So it comes back to "technology good/technology bad" discussion.

[@stickynorth]

Ironically also the most profitable type of skyscraper these days? Mixed-use ones that have everything all in one... Parking, retail, offices, hotel, rentals, condo, hospitality, tourism and even broadcasting.. One of the reasons? Diversification can help cover the loses on any one part of the project. Offices sit empty? That's OK the hotel and observation decks usually make up for the rest! Even one architecture firm in America produced a slideshow showing how the observation deck revenues ALONE could pay off their building within some crazy short time. The rest is just filler to get you to the 600M/1968' mark of REALLY tall buildings which are the maximum allowed by US aviation law I believe....

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Sorry for two replies, but do you know any buildings that mix residential/office/and hotel? I have only seen 2 of the three at once. Mixed use is best, although I wonder how much value the parking adds and how much of that is really paid for by the cities supportive road building.

[@lifetime805]

Interesting, but I imagine the observation deck revenue isn't scalable across hundreds of buildings.

[@Hans_Peterson]

I think the most common argument that I have heard against sky scrapers adding density isn’t that they aren’t dense, but that they often are only built because so much of a metro area is zoned exclusively for single family housing, effectively funneling all excess housing demand into skyscrapers and that for a metro area as a whole, removing single family housing zoning would add more density overall than building more sky scrapers.

[@PaigeMTL]

This is the “Should” section

[@KRYMauL]

They also usually have a lot of parking lot in the middle.

[@tobi2731]

It's not just a zoning issue but a demand issue. Germany and Denmark don't have the same super stupid way to deal with zoning and they have dense historical building mass - and still they've witnessed enormous suburbanization in the 20th century. Copenhagen today is smaller than in 1970 and still there is a huge housing crisis. In Germany this is possible: www.google.com/maps/place/Am+K%C3%B6lnberg,+50997+Rodenkirchen,+Tyskland/@50.8429653,6.907141,2052a,35y,37.41h,47.31t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x47bf230a7d777861:0x333f798b7349ccc1!8m2!3d50.8663571!4d6.9229001!16s%2Fg%2F1tj83zyh?entry=ttu As there is no ironclad zoning in Germany - and still what you actually see is mostly big belts of single family homes around the metropoles and sometimes extending almost to their cores. The development linked above is terrible btw. You shouldn't build a highrise in a suburb many kilometers away from the centre (the actual urban area of Cologne starts again after 3km of field), I just linked it as an example for this being possible under German regulations and that this possibility alone doesn't prevent massive urban sprawl. I don't think it's actually primarily a zoning issue - but if you want a zoning based solution it would be not to allow other developments but to ban single family housing.

[@icmwfsk]

You don't have to choose only from skyscraper and 3 floors. Just build medium-high buildings, like 5-8 floors and you will have the best of both. Good density and walkable streets.

[@IconicPhotonic]

I thought the context behind AdamSomething's point was more towards appealing to people currently living in standalone residential neighborhoods, and was more geared towards combatting nimby points around integrating higher (medium) density as a viable option. Here in Vancouver, there are lots of protected character homes that probably aren't going anywhere, but with a change in zoning, it might be possible to start replacing some of the other houses with midrise buildings, and receive less public backlash than building towers. I could be wrong, but I thought that was the point he was making. Enjoyed this video, and I think you raised some good points often overlooked. I'm also the lefty-enviro-urbanist type, but living in a 16 story tower lol

[@TukaihaHithlec]

That definitely was Adam’s point, and criticizing someone with a larger following in the same space while misrepresenting them is going to turn a lot of newcomers away, despite the valid argument.

[@AmurTiger]

One example that drove the point home for me was that in many cases condo towers are often placed on podiums of townhouses that look precisely like the medium density rowhomes... but there's still a whole tower on top of it. This also allows for some raised greenspace on top of the podium that would otherwise go to waste in medium density that's not keen to spend the money on a structure capable of supporting tons of dirt 3 stories up. Take a look at the corner of Howe and Pacific st in downtown Vancouver for an example.

[@Orozco_PNW]

The Nimby-ism in Seattle is the worst. There is so little land and need as much condo apartment construction as possible in areas where light-rail is expanding to. Unfortunately there a lot of the 'little library, co-op, cycle to work' crowd that doesn't want to give up their single-family home neighborhoods.

[@citylover94]

The Upper East Side in NYC is a great example of how high rises can create high density. The neighborhood is a mix of mid rise and high rise condo and apartment buildings and many of the census block groups in the neighborhood surpassing 100,000 ppsm (people per square mile), a significant number above 200,000 ppsm and some surpass 300,000 ppsm. This is a wealthy neighborhood with above average home sizes for Manhattan so it isn't because of a ton of tiny units.

[@stickynorth]

Subways and Skyscrapers... These would be my two ways of improving all Canadian cities symbiotically the way Hong Kong and Singapore run the only two profitable metro systems on earth and mostly because they act as property developers building Transit Oriented Developments (mostly really tall skyscrapers above a multi-level mall)... It's good to see most Canadian cities start to turn their failing suburban malls into some version of this scheme but it really should include all incomes not just upper-income retirees which seems to be the vibe I get from most schemes... At least here in Alberta!

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Do you have any examples of Malls where multi layers of residential have been added above? I haven't noticed this in Toronto or Ottawa, but obviously we should be. I mean what business owner though it would hurt his/her profits to have a captive market?

[@gabrielandradeferraz386]

Subways and skyscrapers sounds like it would be a great name for an rpg set in new york or some similarly dense city.

[@ishaqmo7200]

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 old comment bit in Istanbul, the Kanyon mall and some other big malls have apartment towers attached to the complex. Another example is the Venezia mega outlet

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

@@ishaqmo7200 Thats a very sensible layout. Do you know if they were built with the structure or added later?

[@ishaqmo7200]

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I think they were actually buiot alongside the malls, but I'm not so sure. Anyways, they generally would qualify as luxury housing

[@tobi2731]

There are multiple factors at play here: * How high are the buildings * How tight are the buildings spaced together (including street width), * How much other functions does the area provide (including commercial activity, parks, infrastructure, etc.)? * How much floorspace does one inhabitant take up (kids tend to push this down)? The densest km² in Turkey (in southern Bahcelievler, Istanbul) is actually below 10 floors consistently and it's denser than the densest km² in Manhattan(86k per km² vs 66k per km²) and also denser than the densest skyscraper area in Istanbul (because they are spaced further apart and likely have bigger appartments too). Macao's and Hong Kong's densest area (Santo António and Mong Kok) have around the same density but Santo António is mostly low to midrise blocks while Mong Kok is almost exclusiely skyscrapers. Macao does this by narrow roads, building even in the middle of blocks (almost no natural light) and small appartments, also I guess possibly less commercial activity. However if all other variables stay the same building higher will always be denser.

[@herbivorousexplorer2922]

No elevators isn't great for wheelchair accessibility. Medium density neighborhoods can at least make the lower level units to be wheelchair accessible

[@PaigeMTL]

They legally have to if there are more than (From memory) 8 units

[@Tyurannical]

I've never seen the density claim, but I have seen people say that cost to build medium density is lower per unit. Is this equally false? Other arguments seem to include: it's faster to build medium density, medium density places less strain on municipal utility infrastructure/requires fewer costly infrastructure updates to service, and the same point again but for things like schools and transit instead of utilities. I'm still in full YIMBY mode fwiw

[@bopete3204]

Construction costs are cheaper for mid-rises, but you're using more land per person. This is something developers internalize though. They choose to build denser when land is most valuable. Density makes infrastructure cheaper overall because it's more cost efficient to serve denser development. If you spread the same population out further, it'll cost more to service.

[@robopilot99]

Yeah, this is the version of the argument I've heard more often. Perhaps the economics work out differently in relatively land-constrained cities such as Seattle or San Francisco as opposed to cities with more buildable land like Atlanta or Houston

[@tonywalters7298]

@@robopilot99 in addition skyscrapers require a lot of space for things like lifts, mechanical floors, and refuge floors, that it may be more efficient to build a shorter building with the same area of leasable space

[@joshlikescola]

There is an apartment in a 20 storey high rise in Manchester owned by people from Hong Kong, who don't live in it. That's because, me, as a broke university student did! The unit was on the ground floor, but modern, affordable and very very close to loads of amenities. Me and my flatmate (we both had our own bathrooms too btw!) used to walk around the city and explore almost every night. It was fantastic and I would totally live somewhere like that again!

[@ix830]

This video provided good food for thought. Here in Texas, the opposition to towers is opposition to density and vehicular congestion. Planners are generally in support of towners however there's so much pushback from (good) designs that reduce parking, add affordable housing, and integrate into popular high-trafficked areas, that often the final produce (if it gets approved) is highly watered down.

[@jkgambz]

A part I hoped you had included in your video was a discussion on the costs of infrastructure to the city. A skyscraper in downtown is very different to a skyscraper in a place where people would have to drive to reach amenities and essential services: both would very likely have different infrastructure costs to the city.

[@robertoaguiar6230]

Finally, an 'urbanist type' that like tall buildings like me is being contemplated. I lived in apartments most of my life, I walk to work, I don't miss a rainy muddy backyard that I never use, and yes, I still like green things. I just grow them inside my apartment where is always warm and for cheap. BTW I heard somewhere the average american move homes every 6 years, why do they live moving all their furniture through stairs and not elevators?

[@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle]

Thank you so much for this. I could never understand why people are so anti towers, some of us actually PREFER to live in them, they dont have to be in every neighborhood but the neighborhoods that do have them manage to pull off great density without everything being claustrophobic feeling (for me personally.)

[@chrisparker9672]

Inject this into my veins

[@jonathanwilkinson4299]

I think the problem is that you only need sky scrappers apartments as opposed to 4 story walk-ups because of r1 zoning takes up so much land space.

[@Antoine893]

Haha this assertion always felt wrong to me, thanks for putting words onto it

[@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031]

Glass skyscrapers aren't really a problem... Photovoltaic glass already exists. The entire glass facade can be a great generator of clean energy.

[@jacksonbarry5407]

You're spot on Paige - as a Melbournian I drive between 40 to 70 minutes weekly to see different family and friends all whilst staying within the Metro area.

[@pepegalego]

Unfortunately in Europe, it is an illusion that "condos" are cheaper than homes outside the city. That definitely isn't the case in Spain. We have created an urban model in which living in the centre of a city is marketed as "good" living, while living in the country or rural areas is for "losers". Check out renting or buying in Madrid

[@Plazmageco]

Wow, just discovered your channel. Wonderful video!

[@AnyVideo999]

Let individuals compare their income to the amenities they'd like. I think above everything, some people just want cheap housing but the people who just want nice housing won't let them have it through all sorts of regulations. Sometimes, keeping the property value high is the goal and unaffordable housing is completely intentional. As strange as it sounds, more high density housing gives way to more availability of less dense housing to those who'd rather cough up the dough. And if you really have to have it, work virtual and live in the endless list of low density mid sized cities and towns.

[@UrbanJerseyGuy]

Jersey City shout-out!

[@GenericUrbanism]

Jersey City baby. Iconic city in my books.

[@PASH3227]

I'm not a fan of most urbanist KZbin channels. This is one of the few exceptions! Great video arguing why "urbanists" need to accept the reality of condo towers instead how things should be.

[@tuqe]

I guess people are arguing that there’s a lot of space around a tall structure. But to be honest the idea that slightly more than single family homes are the peak never sat right with me

[@FrizzyAnimation]

This channel deserves more subs and views

[@alexmedak9808]

Did you grow up between NZ and Canada? Your accent is such an interesting mix

[@PaigeMTL]

There is a whole video on that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5nXYXhsYteNb7c

[@markvogel5872]

Yay city planning videos!!! So relaxing and a nice change of pace from my normal political shows!

[@lkrnpk]

Even as a European I am sometimes pissed about this, I live in Eastern Europe and real estate prices are going up and local urbanists here are like - let's build just three floor buildings with nice car free yards and yadda yadda, it's still more dense than a tower. But it's kinda ridiculous, I know we have old commieblocks and people do not like them, but Finland, Helsinki has 7 floor neighborhoods no problem (near West harbor) and some a bit higher, no need for skyscrapers, but we here with much less income dream that everything should be 3 floor fancy low rise urban wonderland, seems like some people do not realize that not everyone has money to live in those dream neighborhoods. Here it's not even a case of skyscrapers, some people are pissed that even some 12 floor building is going up... And as usual as soon as you try to argue that development can be mixed and there can be 3 floor, 6 floor, 8 floor buildings and an occasional tower, that folk start to think you just want to cover the city with new commieblocks :D So somebody will ask ''are you a commie, do you want to build a new ghetto for us'' :D

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

There's NOTHING wrong with commie blocks! They provided housing for millions of people then and even now.

[@---jc7pi]

I mostly agree. But I don't think density is really the most important thing from an environment or living cost perspective. Walkability is the most important thing , no matter density. If you are in a region that is really attractive, people will just build higher overtime and you add more transit as density improves. Currently high rises make much sense because you can build them. The urbanist 2-4 story neiberhoods are great, but not dense enough for the city centers and then around those centers most are already ringed with singe family homes and R1 zoning. It takes a long time to transition whole neighborhoods from single family to medium density urban environments. So both cities with increasing large high rises and walkable medium density neighborhoods really need to work hand in hand. And change the city back to a circle with higher density in the center and then gradually decreasing as you go out. All of it can be walkable and connected with trains (or insert your tranist of choice).

[@liamtahaney713]

Damn, bigger builders are bigger. Who knew. I feel like the whole idea of "Brusselsization" is a victim of you're argument here. It's an aesthetic argument against making housing more affordable. Here in Belgium we have way way way cheaper housing in our major cities than the Netherlands, most of France, Ireland, UK, and it's definitely not the only reason but I think it's in large part due to the higher frequency of high rise towers in places other European cities wouldnt accept due to looks...sorry for the run on sentence it just really annoys me when urbanists look down on places that people can actually afford to live because they don't look like what they imagine they should

[@PaigeMTL]

Interesting, you know there’s actually quite a few Belgians in Montreal but I’ve never talked to them about it. I think people forget how ugly a city is on the inside when it can only comfortably be inhabited by the wealthy. If prices keep hiking here I’d rather make video essays in Houston than work full time in a “sensible job” here. What’s the point of life, you know?

[@serialmigrant]

Height is a deception ?! Fire Elevators and mechanical shafts don't take that much space

[@CoryAlbrecht]

Wow. This specific topic really got you ruled up, eh? Good video.

[@simoneh4732]

Yes. Just yes. Thank you Paige.

[@brianhalps]

THANK YOU FOR USING REASON, MATH, AND PHYSICS TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE - instead of politics you got us the truth. Thank you.

[@JuanCamiloGamboaHiguera]

Density is not the only important measure. High rises get more expensive as they increase in height. They get more expensive to build, more expensive to maintain and require more city infrastructure to be built around them (schools, health services, fire and police stations, roads, utilities, etc)

[@Geotpf]

More expensive to build-definitely. More expensive to maintain-I would like to see some proof of that. As for schools/fire station/etc.-nope. A square foot of living space is a square foot of living space for those sorts of things. You will need more of them in an area with lots of tall buildings because, tada, those areas are denser, duh. But not more, and probably actually less, than a less dense area, on a square foot of living space basis.

[@elijahmiller6925]

What about 6 story buildings that don't impede too much of a shadow on the street, but have sufficient density to have a dense walkable neighborhood, and short enough buildings that elevators aren't needed

[@tonywalters7298]

You wouldn’t be able to build multiple story buildings without elevator access today due to accessibility requirements.

[@Geotpf]

Shadows can actually be good things because summer is hot. Attempting to get rid of all shadows is usually just an excuse from NIMBYs to not build dense buildings.

[@SkaN2412]

It's true that high rises bring the most density. But like you said yourself, density isn't everything - you like the Plateau for its community, greenery and just the overall feel. But walk through Griffintown and it has none of those things. You'd be lucky to encounter a ground level tree (they love their roof trees though). Amenities are scarce and really they come to Pointe-St-Charles even for schools. Why do they keep building? Because they don't care about the actual demand - all real estate is in high demand right now. So they sell it to the poor suckers that are these condos' first buyers, and check out. These condo companies and developers will never have to deal with the future cost of these developments, they've already cashed out. And when it becomes too unsustainable to maintain them, they'll just leave them to become slums really. The point that all the downtown professionals would buy up these condos and leave more affordable housing for the rest of us is a good point. These people don't mind sleeping in a shoebox and then walking 5 minutes to their spacious office in the morning. The problem is that post-pandemic way fewer people actually work downtown. When you work remotely from your home, you want it to feel good. So they want outdoor space and nearby amenities, such as found in Verdun, Pointe-St-Charles, Plateau. But new neighborhoods like that aren't built anymore, so the supply actually became limited. And it's no longer an issue of zoning, not within the city, it's an issue of having built unsustainable niche housing. And I'm not making a case against high rises overall. Rich penthouse type people need to live somewhere too! But when building up an area, all types of housing should be built. Like the towers you've showed in the Plateau - they're carefully sprinkled in between mostly medium density, so instead of taking up public space and killing the liveability of an area, they just integrate into it, and that's ok.

[@aerob1033]

First off, kudos for actually going out and collecting the data. That's awesome. Second, I do have to ask--how often do pro-housing urbanists actually go after skyscrapers? Maybe we're just in different internet circles, but I don't see it a lot. I *mostly* see it from anti-housing, pro-car-infrastructure NIMBYs. Lastly, I'd like to add that skyscrapers are mostly only financially viable because we've legislated away the ability to build mid-rises in most neighborhoods. If I have any significant problem with building skyscrapers, it's that they're trading land efficiency for cost inefficiency, and we could get a lot more good urbanism overall for our money and resources if we just allowed normal unremarkable urban buildings with 5-10 floors to be built everywhere in our cities again, like they were in most of great boom cities of North America around the turn of the 20th century.

[@AL5520]

I've never heard someone say that a skyscraper does not have high density but I'm sure they exist, but probably most of them just misunderstood the claim. skyscrapers can be super dense but they are not suited for a large scale city as apart from being expensive to build, they are very expensive to maintain so unless the residents have the cash to pay for maintenance they will rapidly become a dangerous slum. Apart from that most have large space between them (unlike your example, which is not the norm) so they are less efficient than you claim. As for Paris, and other "grandfather density", micro apartments exist (like they do, and in a worst state in NYC, for example) but they are definitely not the norm. Elevators do exist in many of them or have been retrofitted during a renovation. I know because I live in one of those cities, and there are a lot of them. As for the size, we don't need huge spaces to live but they are less wasteful than what you're talking about, most have a decent sized kitchen but you can do anything with a "micro kitchen", we live in normal cities with great public transport so we don't need parking (and if you insist you can rent one in a nearby car park) and we definitely don't use common laundry (you either have a washer and hang your close to dry, some will also have a dryer - like me, although I rarely use it or a laundromat or a cleaner in the neighborhood, usually both and nearby). You can have high density cities without skyscrapers and you can have a supper high standard of living if you understand that there are more important things that a huge bedroom (you sleep there, why does it have to be huge) or a big kitchen (my grand mother baked and cooked the most amazing things in a micro kitchen), that you don't need a car if you have a metro, countless of buses, trams, commuter and regional trains and intercity high speed trains and even an excellent taxi service (I'm not talking about Paris) and no Uber. I'm not against skyscrapers, but in moderation and where needed, and in most cities you can do without them or with far less of them.

[@ODXT]

I was thinking about a lot of this while watching the video. That it's arguing over something that I haven't really seen anyone claim (although they probably exist), about density. But really the main things I've seen is about the money, resources, energy, and all the maintenance needed to have one. Which makes it extremely difficult as a realistic solution for most of the population, which is why we only see them in expensive land in specific places. Which is why leftist look to the things that can actually be made without needing to wealthy (or waiting for a billionaire to bless us), something housing coops can make, maintain. Plus something the video doesn't talk about is, why are we even in the city in the first place (and for most people it's because of their jobs). The video talked about how people don't like it for aesthetic purposes, but earlier he mentioned the green leftists, so why not go into detail about that. I enjoyed the video, but I can't shake the feeling that it's responding to an argument that not many are making, and not responding to the climate change related concerns that he acknowledged early on.

[@boredphysicist]

The way ive always understood it was the argument was if you want hufe density without it getting expensive you aim for around 10 or fewer stories, whereas yes for actual true density you want skyscrapers

[@Danji_Coppersmoke]

Great. Much needed reality check. I love condo. No stair climbing and no dust (with hard wood floor) compare to suburb. You have no idea how much dust you got when you leave the windows open especially in mid-west US. ..(Edit: windowS)

[@MatthewGraham027]

Great video. Those urbanist types are getting annoying with this topic. People can just say that they have preferences that high-rises don't meet. It's fine if you don't like them. That makes you a normal human like everyone else. Trying to pretend your pseudo-rational nonsense makes sense is a problem. We don't need to hear that nonsense.

[@RamseyKilani]

We have glass buildings because people in condos want sunlight. When only one wall can get sun, you want as much as possible.

[@alistair9337]

Wonder how the math of density would change if you took an average of a block of hi rise v low rise, rather than an individual building v low rise. Feels like a lot of hi rise are a bit spread out, hi rise in a park etc

[@The_Monolith]

"Feels like a lot of hi rise are a bit spread out, hi rise in a park etc." And that's great. The biggest issue with mid-density buildings that are so widespread in certain neighbourhoods is that to compensate for their lower density, the urban planners eradicate almost all green spaces and build housing units EVERYWHERE. I'd much rather have the exact same population density with a bunch of high rises surrounded by parks for everyone to enjoy.

[@gabrieldomocos7570]

Skyscrapers are not the problem, but they are a symptom. The problem is zoning, taxation schemes and cultural/political systems that treat real estate values like a golden goose that will keep on producing theoretical money for everyone who owns. And everyone knows that theoretical money is the best kind of money.

[@bopete3204]

Even with no zoning we'd see towers in the cores of cities. People want to live there, and towers are how you do it.

[@Geotpf]

@@bopete3204 With no zoning you'd see a ton of very tall, very dense buildings in the most desirable parts of the city. In areas with cheaper land, not as much, because shorter buildings cost less per square foot than tall ones, so building out would make more fiscal sense. But even there, chances are the buildings that would be built would be taller than in a world with zoning laws.

[@_SpamMe]

Interesting ... debate? I mean, ultimately, how can anyone doubt that if you take any neighborhood - doesn't matter what kind - and put 1 extra floor on top, you reach a higher density? And if you keep repeating that, that that density increases further and further, perhaps somewhat less by each floor, but still ultimately an increase? And, of course, yes, once certain threshold are reached new concerns arise (ie everyone on street level being in perpetual darkness and where to put the infrastructure for all the people that need to get to and from the towers ...) but purely in terms of density for any reasonable height and with no concerns for example for cost or building complexity there really can't be much of an argument. I'll add though that I found the Paris example a bit extreme and the Montreal neighborhood I'm not sure I'd even count as medium density, that's more like low-to-medium to me. Either way, though it does illustrate the point that, uh, denser buildings are more dense than less dense well, I feel like you'd ultimately have to compare larger "units". Because for example if you got a purely residential medium-density block, and you say that's quite dense, but then a park next to it, well, if you count the park, it's the same issue as a tower-in-the-park approach to skyscrapers, just differently "sorted". And ultimately all this type of city infrastructure needs to get somewhere - school, shops, offices, whatever. So just rule-of-thumb-wise I'd feel it makes more sense to compare cities in their entirety, see what they do with zoning and density-style, and what effects that has. Because, yeah, back to square one, put an extra floor on top and it's denser. Of course.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

It seems obvious but many people really do insist that towers aren't as dense as mid-rise buildings! We get comments like that on our videos pretty often.

[@_SpamMe]

@@OhTheUrbanity Well, like I said, I think there's two "debates": one; is a building with a certain footprint and a certain height denser if there's additional height? (basically guaranteed yes) Does it de facto mean that higher buildings are denser? Well, that's not so easy to answer. Montreal "Downtown" is just 4800 people / km² if I found that correctly, with it's mix of towers and mid-density neighborhoods. Munich "Downtown" (effectively uniform 8 floors) does 5000 to 11000 people/km². Barcelona does 15,000 for the entire city (some towers). Tokyo, again in its entirety, does "just" 6000 people/km². The question should be about what causes these differences (and I'm reasonably sure it's not "look at these pocket-sized apartments!") holistically, instead of going block by block. It's not difficult finding singular examples of residential towers that offer barely any density and it's also not difficult finding super-dense low-rise neighborhoods. It's much harder finding out how density plays out over entirely different zoning and residential approaches and what that actually does ...

[@PaigeMTL]

Cool

[@cw4959]

Well actually!

[@erikwilliams8610]

if density is thought of as actual distance between residences and businesses it is measured by volume rather than area. It seems to me that in that model any floor number is capable of the same density given the same amount of space is devoted to streets, hallways, elevators, open spaces etc. Since most forms of locomotion are faster than elevators high rises are effectively less dense than other options.

[@nedvb6676]

Really interesting video loved it !

[@coreysimmerer]

You’re right that a single building has a higher population density than a half a block of midrises, and many urbanist types have the “all skyscrapers are bad” sentiment wrong. I’m all for towers, but not ONLY towers. However, I think what is the issue is that most American cities only try for density by having a few towers surrounded by parking lots and then a highway and then single family homes, with no middle housing at all. Montreal is quite the exception with lots of missing middle housing. For example, Mount Vernon, a high risey residential neighborhood in Baltimore, has a population of 27k/sq mi. Highlandtown, a rowhome neighborhood has a nearly equivalent 24k/sq mi. This just goes to show that high rises are not the only way to create density. The reason why high rise neighborhoods in America are so sparsely populated is more to do with the urban planning around them than the buildings themselves.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

With those densities I'm surprised Baltimore does not have more subways!

[@coreysimmerer]

@@edwardmiessner6502 Me too. You can blame our governor for cancelling them.

[@malcolmnewall6867]

There are times coverage rules that can result in low density high rises. However obvious cause high rise in a park

[@joshuamartin3781]

Great video

[@jonathanstensberg]

Instant sub.

[@thebastardbrasta9260]

The cheapest apartments in Hong Kong, to build, per square foot of usable space, are 30 stories tall. This ignores economies of agglomeration, infrastructure savings, environmental benefits, advantages of better public transportation, and is mostly caused by a suboptimal building code. So if the problem is that skyscrapers aren't affordable, then they should be mandated to be way, way way taller.

[@redknightsr69]

Bro, I'm very intoxicated off of all this common sense I have been indoctrinated with

[@raaaaaaaaaam496]

Multiple partners lmao

[@alexwilliamns]

A comment for the algorithm.

[@danesovic7585]

Neighborhood of L’Hospitalet de Llobegrat in Barcelona packs over 53,000 people per sq/km using nothing but mid and low-rise housing. Would you able to achieve the same density in a neighborhood using only skyscrapers? I understand that when comparing individual lots, skyscrapers win, but you can't have too many skyscrapers too close to each other in a single neighborhood.

[@PaigeMTL]

Yes

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

Laughs in New York, Beijing, Hong Kong and many other cities that do just that.

[@MrGregp11]

I think a look at "goldilocks density" should be important. Is it something like Olympic village with tight streets and 12-18 storey buildings or Brentwood with its 30+ storey condos. Density is good but what builds the most comfortable neighborhood. And maybe density plays no part at all?

[@PaigeMTL]

I’d prioritize asking the people sleeping in tent cities about neighbourhood comfort.

[@MrGregp11]

@@PaigeMTL I think you'd find a pretty similar answer to any person. They want housing. They're just people after all. I don't think crafting a plan for a city solely off of housing the homeless is particularly practical and is a knee jerk reaction. I'm not saying we don't continue to require allotments of subsidized units building supportive SORs, I'm saying suddenly building everything as high as possible is reactionary. It is more politically difficult to start removing single family homes and building large (as said above) buildings instead of just skyscrapers but I think it's necessary. Brentwood is building some of the tallest buildings in western Canada a stone's throw away from neighborhoods of Vancouver specials. That just seems silly to me. So just to to wrap it up, as someone who lives on the DTES, housing the homeless is important but it should not blind us to the other issues of the erosion of local social networks/contacts, lack of walkable spaces, and insufficient greenspace. It is not zero sum.

[@theamazingsolt]

This guy just tacitly admitted to not having multiple sexual partners. Good vid PS

[@agussaurus2707]

Maintenance cost and carbon footprint of building the skyscrapers is way bigger tho, you cant ignore that

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

True, but then again.. suburbia is significantly more wasteful and it has an extremely low density.

[@kirkrotger9208]

I think the point that kind of gets missed here is that the vast majority of high-rise buildings are commercial, not residential, and the ones that are residential tend to be luxury condos that are likely much larger than a typical apartment. Mid-rise neighborhoods *do* tend to have the highest densities. Case in point, NYC. The two neighborhoods with the tallest buildings, Midtown and the Financial District, also have the lowest residential densities in Manhattan, meanwhile the densest neighborhoods, the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Kips Bay/Gramercy are all low to mid-rise, with most buildings being under 10 stories, and the tallest generally being about 20. Hell, Midtown in particular has a population density similar to most of Queens or the north shore of Staten Island, which is to say, very low. I'm definitely very pro-high rise, but it very much depends on what's being built and what the aggregate is. It's not about towers being necessarily less dense. Obviously, the opposite is true. But 70-story towers aren't what's getting built for typical residential use. At most you're usually getting the smaller, mid-rise buildings that you brought up in your video at 15-25 stories, and you can absolutely achieve very high density, with high quality units at under 10 stories.

[@_yak]

Great video! Question: is it true that condos lose value as they age? Isn’t that a question of where the housing market is going? I don’t expect most condo buyers to assume that their place will become less valuable over time. I know that history has proven that it can be a mistake, but many people so see their housing purchase as an investment.

[@yt.damian]

Question: Why do you like external staircases?

[@OhTheUrbanity]

It's a neat way to give upper floor units their own front door.

[@PaigeMTL]

I could talk about this for ages. I just think they're immensely practical in this part of Canada. The low rise buildings here with internal access require so much cleaning in winter because people walk from the entrance door to their unit wearing boots. With outdoor stairs you knock a lot of snow off as you go up them and then take them off to go into your unit directly. Moving furniture up internal staircases also really blows. In general, they're part of this Montreal balcony culture where you get to know all your neighbours over the years because you see them descending and ascending their stairs every day. You get a chance to chat and put a name to a face eventually, and just end up knowing a lot of people who keep an eye on your place and help you out when you need tools or a hand carrying something. The old timers on my street seem to be best friends and hangout on the stairs/balconies, guess that'll be me one day.

[@isimerias]

I would love to see the Montreal skyline Montreal reborn with art deco skyscrapers 😢 i too have had enough of glass for a lifetime

[@albertplumer]

Suggest dense buildings over highway s ,in air space unused, blocks between could be lawns or parks, under roads could be parking garages.Air quality might improve.fog conditions for motorists might be mitigated.taxation reduced perhaps .oops politicans wont allow .

[@osterguy86]

Great video as usual Paige! Just missing a link to the lefty polyamourous beading co-op you hinted at

[@Lildizzle420]

um excuse me what's wrong with growing hydro

[@oskarsyren]

Okay, but you're comparing with a 200 meter skyscraper which is way beyond the average highrise densification. The fact that it only contained 2,67 times the amount of units of the three storey neighbourhood is quite astonishing. All things considered that just seems to strengthen the case for medium density. Am I missing something?

[@PaigeMTL]

It's one of 3 buildings on the lot, only two of the buildings equal 68,582 square meters, so at least 5 times the density. It's quite likely 6 once the hotel is added. Montreal currently only allows 200m in a few select places downtown, almost all of which build to that limit when they do construct something. We will probably have more people living downtown when more lots are zoned 200 meters, or that cap gets lifted.

[@ostione]

Another reason why urbanists types (at least here in Montreal) keep arguing that density is higher in mid sized blocks is because the first little drawing they show you in your bachelors degree is a FAR graphic showing that tower-in-the-park style buildings have the same density as regular blocks. Conveniently forgeting the ''park'' part and just keeping the ''tower'' part in mind, they then keep pushing this ''tall bad'' narrative throughout the years as they make you sacrifice coffee beans to the greystone altar of Jan Ghel. Spatial equilibrium models are conveniently shoved into the bottom drawer of the microeconomics class not to be spoken about again in any part of the curriculum.

[@beacher7614]

its politics, always is. far easier to convince people for mid rises than super towers. Just like it is far easier to convince people of stronger property rights than building public housing

[@McRyach]

Hey what's wrong with growing weed? ☹🎍🌿🍃

[@Daniel-jv1ku]

I believe we should do design standards for tall buildings and try to create that community feel (Vancouverism), but our biggest focus should be European-style mid-rise and the missing middle. Tall buildings have their place but they shouldn't be the only housing choice available and should be carefully placed to promote the livability and pleasantness of downtowns. In revising its PLU (Plan locale d'urbanisme / City-wide plan), Montreal should recognize what makes some places pleasant (ex. Historic Montreal or Plateau-Mont-Royal) and others that are the complete opposite (central business district), while also ensuring that it remains far more affordable than other Canadian cities and lowering prices even more. Aesthetics are a part of this, too, and the city shouldn't be afraid to take a stand on it instead of just "encouraging" good design and without explanation of what design languages we want. There's a reason why many consider Montreal to be their favourite city in the country so we should preserve AND build on those qualities to make it even better.

[@stekra3159]

America soud grapel with its bad landuse we scoud be alowed to build dence ish everywhere instea ofd in ther few places its currently awed in wher devopers use that limetd land and caram in as many units as they can.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

The problem in North American cities is not the skyscrapers but the missing middle density housing. In too many cities you have sky-rise condos and apartments giving way to single family homes. Why not permit existing SFH property owners to convert to 2, 3, and 4-family houses? Why not allow three-deckers and six-packs be built on vacant lots? Why not allow apartment houses be built on top of shops instead of hideous strip malls with their seas of parking? Karen and Darren Nimby need to answer for why not.

[@PaigeMTL]

I’ve never heard this before. What’s “missing middle”? Is it some sort of politically feasible idea that car dominated suburbs with locally elected officials love?

[@LightbulbTedbear2]

Arguably the problem with skyscrapers is a more intangible, emotional one. They're faceless, soulless cubes, utterly detached from the streetscape they live on. They are the antithesis to strong community ties. They're also usually built with zero regard for the existing style or character of the neighbourhood they're in. I think that's the real issue - skyscrapers wash away the culture and history of the place they inhabit. On the inside and outside, any skyscraper looks the same as any other skyscraper from anywhere in the world. A lot of people see them as one step closer to the inevitable global monoculture that awaits us in our future.

[@Lildizzle420]

considering that exclusionary zoning was used specifically to segregate neighborhoods, what you're saying is contradictory to how inclusive communities are actually created. you're misdiagnosing the problem with streetscapes, it's not sky scrappers, it's cars. look at new yorks time square, it's amazing how active the street becomes when it's for humans and not cars.

[@djsiii4737]

I wished this video actually addressed the real debate, which is NIMBYs complaining about tall towers in suburban areas and equating them with high density. In suburban communities, tall does not ALWAYS mean high density due to seas of surface parking and large setbacks. I don't hear any urbanists talking about how mid rise communities are more sense than high rise unless it's specific circumstances

[@dbclass2969]

I don't disagree but this is a strawman argument that seems like a waste. There isn't a significant amount of urbanists calling for skyscraper bans. What people want is unlocked zoning so more varied forms of housing and neighborhoods can be built.

[@PaigeMTL]

You are literally strawmanning me. This isn't a video to dissuade urbanists from implementing skyscraper bans. It's a video about a confirmation bias problem with the public and Skyscrapers, the willingness to believe something absurd seemed best illustrated by the bizarre comment I regularly get that "Skyscrapers aren't actually dense". I encourage people to be less snobby about what form of densification we build because Skyscrapers have a lot going for the, have been making important contributions to housing supply in recent years and are indeed the densest thing we build.

[@dbclass2969]

@@PaigeMTL you're literally strawmaning again. There aren't a significant amount of urbanists saying that skyscrapers aren't more dense (they will usually claim that they're not economically viable after a certain height or that they're not human scale). Feel like I just said this twice but by skyscraper ban I mean the idea that a significant amount of urbanists don't want to build them at all which you alluded to in your video.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

@@dbclass2969 We encounter these ideas often enough that we made our own video on skyscrapers a few months ago too. It’s not every urbanist, but there’s definitely a certain kind who says that skyscrapers shouldn’t be built because they’re not livable, not necessary, or not actually dense.

[@DjChronokun]

skyscrapers make my favorite kinds of neighborhoods- especially tower parks! (sadly these aren't very common in the western world anymore because zoning scarcity tends to force us to cram all our buildings closer together in the small areas of the city in which we're actually allowed to build them)

[@gags4u2]

You make a lot of excellent points but I can't help but feel your tone comes across as condescending. I've heard arguments against high rises that claim the lack of social amenities like shops, parks and schools which cannot be built in high rises reduce their effective density. So maybe comparing the number of housing units is not entirely accurate.

[@PaigeMTL]

I think the "not enough amenities" thing is pretty obviously incorrect. If the area is zoned mixed use like (say) Saint Catherine street most buildings have the entire ground floor occupied by commercial units. If there are 1000 units above your head, people want shops and stuff. Don't know why you felt it necessary to tell me how you feel about my tone, I'm standing on camera telling people what I think and why I think it. If it is gives you some negative sense or isn't enjoyable, hit that thumbs down to let the algorithm know you don't want to see my stuff anymore. Don't make me feel bad for the way I communicate, I enjoy being able to be myself when I make videos.

[@rhalfik]

High buildings only are really significantly higher density if they're in the direct vicinity of public transit like metro. Otherwise they're somewhat limited by how many cars can be parked near them. The only exception are the expensive ones with underground parking. I've seen many towers with vast parking lots around them that not only were taking a lot of space but also this space was a desert, a frying pan. A metro line fixes that. I noticed that there are towers almost completely inhabited by people without cars or just straight AirBNB apartments. So I agree with the lefty type of urbanists because people often consider towers some goal in their life. They want to live in a city with skyscrapers without giving an actual reason. They just like to be dominated or imagine themselves on top of that structure looking down on others without even thinking about the actual quality of architecture and growth. Maybe you don't know such people, but where I live it's quite common. Luckily these towers are being replaced with newer ones and hopefully they' learned their mistakes.

[@DjChronokun]

DO NOT ban glass skyscrapers 😠

[@TalwinderDhillonTravels]

Obviously your video is kinda rhetorical and made for so called idiots But playing devil’s(commenters you are talking about) advocate here. North America has this tendency of finding a piece of land where zoning laws are relaxed and kinda goes crazy with it. There is no general shift in mentality or change in zoning laws. So yea if someone tries to build a 20+ storey building in my 4-5 storey neighbourhood, i would probably also hate it. I am no expert here but i don’t know if you need to build 50 storey buildings to solve housing crisis. Maybe 6-10 storeys can also solve the issue. There’s a video on what makes a city beautiful by The school of life channel. It kinda gets on psychology of why people like or don’t like specific height neighbourhoods. It’s not all for aesthetics and lefties hating corporate culture. Cheers 🍻 Edit: removed comment on NY and Paris density comparison. I don’t need 10 more comments on that telling me what i already know.

[@teddymacrae]

I believe the success of Paris and other european cities is because most of the city is on the higher end of mid density. To achieve that in a north american city you'd have to rebuild vast portions of whats already there, which is pretty much the opposite of what we actually do.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

The Paris versus New York comparison is tricky because, as the video mentioned, a lot of the tall buildings in New York are office towers, not residential, so they don't get counted as "density" in the people sense (even though they provide lots of floor space). On top of this, outside of Lower Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan, New York isn't mostly made up of towers. It actually looks surprisingly like Paris, with mid-rise apartments covering much of the city. A surprising amount of land in NYC is even taken up by single-family homes.

[@Nouvellecosse]

Yes as Ted mentioned, 6-10 stories would be fine if you allowed that everywhere but many cities in NA are dominated by areas where only houses - often single-family detached houses - are allowed. If a city is growing and you don't want a ton of sprawl or to lose most of your existing nabes then yes, skyscrapers are needed. Also, the claim that Paris is denser than NY is only partly true. NYC as a municipality is much larger in area than Paris whose city boundaries mostly just include a small central area. If you just compared the central-most parts of NYC (which is where most of the skyscrapers are) to the equivalent central part of Paris, that part of NYC would be denser.

[@cmmartti]

Would you actually hate it if there was a 20-storey apartment building in your neighborhood? If it was designed well, you probably wouldn't even notice, especially if there is a lot of street foliage (trees). Of course, if ten 20-storey apartment buildings popped into existence you would notice, but the point is that mixed density is good, and a tower here and there among shorter multiplexes is perfectly fine.

[@bopete3204]

This has already been addressed in the video. Paris has smaller unit sizes and Manhattan is mostly offices. Additionally, Paris only includes central Paris and not the suburbs, while New York is amalgamated and includes many lower-density areas.

[@hydrocharis1]

While you're not entirely wrong, big bilding mor peeple then smol bilding, there is a reason people say this. It is an observation that some of the most densest cities proper are surprisingly ... low. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density). You can disregard the developing world as not a solution for the problems but Europe is faring a lot better than North America, and North America not really winning with their high buildings either but rather with places in New Jersey. Now, of course Manhattan has a lot of offices where people don't actually live, but I'd say that this monofunctionalism in itself is a mdoernist problem in itself in many North American cities which makes the cities less dense and liveable overall. Now of course New York is of course not the best example of that and people live pretty close together, but I'd say that is rather a result of all the development from before the war rather than after it. If you have monofunctionalism, you also have to account for a lot of room for cars, and big houses with cars, and parking places everywhere in America because of this zoning which reduces overall density. If you mix more you can simply achieve higher densities, and a handful of skyscrapers are usually pretty detrimental to mixing due to their scale. After all, most functions still 'mix' on the ground despite modernist attempts to break this dogma. Also, I don't think Parisians live so small and miserably as you might think and just writing off the entirety of Europe as not as uncomfortable and unliveable compared to North American standards, and the entirety of the rest of the world as slums, is frankly a bit narrow-minded. By the way I don't think everyone in Manhattan lives so 'big and comfortable' either. Different point, we do have a lot of modernism in Europe as well and it is usually the towers in a park type that turn out to be less dense and far less performant (due to no mixing) and safe (no eyes on the streets) than the traditional European city design they bulldozed for it, even if they give the appearance of being dense. Now we don't build towers in a park anymore but we do build much more elegant slender towers with luxury appartments with stunning views, in contrast to these bold broad 60s blocks, which, for all its flaws, housed a lot of people cheaply in one building. This is because height looks a lot more impressive than horizontal distance. A 100m long low-building street is a lot less impressive than a 100m tower with enough space around it to fit some streets. The empty space a tower often claims, on the ground, but also in the air because people want to have views (definitely in recent builds), should be considered as well, and if you mentally deconstruct a 100m tower into two 50m ones or 4 25m tall ones close together, you'll quickly see height often gives a bit of an illusion of density in messy places that squander space in other ways, and the way a city looks on a 2D sattelite picture is still pretty relevant in how dense a place actually is. This is more a European perspective. Of course in America there are some impressive places where incredibly high towers are incredibly close together which is absolutely fine but these are very long-term projects which are very expensive and work only on a very big scale, and building mini-Manhattans is pretty much overkill for most cities. I'd say most cities really do not really need to build much higher than 100m, and it's better to have building codes to let developers not build lower than an absolute minimum I don't know, five stories and in blocks or streets, than let them have one skyscraper vanity project to attract investors and squander all the space around it and probably leave a messy and unwelcoming neighbourhood behind that only gives an illusion of being dense, and even if it outscores on density, it might not be a choice we might want to make, because after all, density should be a means to liveability and efficiency and not the other way around. So the latter should not be compromised for the former. So in short, I think high-rises are ok, skyscrapers often unnecessary and decadent. Most importantly you have to use the space on the ground well and not lose sight of function mixing and community so it still feels like a welcoming city, and just build places where people want to actually live and go to. That's my more European view on the matter. Maybe I'm wrong and illogical, maybe I'm wrong about my assumptions about the US, feel free to answer.