Why We Shouldn't Build Skyscrapers

[@AdamSomething]

As a side note, I feel like I was more charitable to skyscrapers than I should have been, as if they're a genuine attempt at trying to improve a city, and not just corporate dick-measuring contests and/or real estate speculation schemes.

[@N00N01]

Yeah,tho still being a preaty bad-ish idea as the basic concept of bringing them in is 1 hour EVERYONE IN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE and then after that the infrastructure would be enough for 18-25 times what the traffic after would be

[@snarkylive]

@@N00N01 I feel like they would be better if they were actually multiuse and people lived/schooled/shopped in the building they worked, and then leaving is for recreation only for the most part. But they don't do a good job at integrating them

[@TROPtastic]

Depends on whether you're talking about real skyscrapers (ie. buildings designed for the express purpose of being the tallest or most flashy) or just any building taller than 10 stories. Real urban planners broadly accept the latter when they're designed with human factors in mind and are built around high quality public transit.

[@pyadav285]

Well, you didn't mention the biggest advantage of skyscrapers. They occupy less land area. Which means more space to plant trees around. The comparision between Burj Khalifa and village house makes sense, except that there is a lot more open space to plant trees around Burj Khalifa. Sure you could plant rows of tees between parallel blocks of those village house buildings, but nothing more than that. In the open space around Burj Khalifa, you could plant an entire Miyawaki forest. Of course, it's a seperate issue that people rarely do that around skyscrapers.

[@kleszczoros4885]

In my oppinon the only place where skyscrapers make sense is Japan and capital cities of most 1st world counties Europe doesn't use skyscrapers alot because of the old buildings it has (few countries being the exception echem Poland warsaw, Berlin

[@hammond1994]

I can honestly say I have never built a skyscraper.

[@Sh4dxwxz]

What a hero 👏👏

[@deanmoriarty6015]

thank you for your service

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

ME NEITHER!!!

[@jazzbefos9303]

Here King, you dropped this 👑🤲

[@Jackpkmn]

I tried to build one in modded minecraft cus i just wanted a towering monolith of rock and steel for my factories. I gave up after building about 4 floors up because it was just more efficient from a factory planning standpoint to build outward.

[@anarchosherman961]

This man is pissing off an architecture community I didn’t think existed

[@garppppp]

We exist. We are legion, and we see skyscrapers as the magnum opus of human kind. And yes we are very pissed off.

[@sysonic917]

@Literally Cancer I personally would have the burj khalifa rather than a square, ugly 10 story commie duplicated 4 times.

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

Don't piss off architects... they might leave you entombed in a brick wall!

[@archangel9363]

"An architect's greatest failure is when no-one uses their building" - Unknown

[@notavailable.000]

@@garppppp lmao

[@jasonquigley2633]

I'm a HVAC engineer. I used to be a skyscraper fan, but having worked on a few of these buildings I've concluded that they are not good for the urban environment, compared to buildings under 10 stories. In addition to what Adam said: 1. The systems for these buildings are highly complicated, which is good for the prestige(and paychecks) of the engineers working on it, but smaller buildings can use much simpler, and efficient out of the box designs. Every tall skyscraper is essentially a prototype, which means it's systems are more prone to failures, and designs are more likely to contain mistakes. 2. They are large, inflexible single use structures. A smaller building can easily be repurposed into something else, and if necessary knocked down. Skyscrapers, on the other hand, are nearly impossible to demolish @at least not without serious health and safety issues), and very difficult to repurpose as needs change. That office space can only ever be used as office space, and further more you'll be limited by the foresight of engineers and architects living 50 years ago. Good luck finding spare parts for the chiller plant whose manufacturer dissappeared 30 years ago. Heaven help you if you want to do a green retrofit. 3. They are inefficient, you would be surprised how little usable floor space these towers have. Over half the floor area is taken up with elevators, structural supports and utilities. On a building under 10 stories this is usually less than a quarter, on a 6 story walk up maybe less than a 10th. Skyscrapers suffer from diseconomies of scale, and the main reason they're built is to satisfy the egoes of the wealthy men who own them, and the architects and engineers who design them.

[@kshitizmishra5154]

"Skyscrapers suffer from diseconomies of scale, and the main reason they're built is to satisfy the egoes of the wealthy men who own them, and the architects and engineers who design them." Ted Mosby in tatters!

[@asherwiggin6456]

I’ve always wanted to build a skyscraper, just to see how tall I could make something. Humans obviously, would not ever be meaningful to the project and therefore can be ignored

[@luks1207]

An HVAC engineer who used to be a fan, hehe

[@oskarnone5288]

My main concern with skyscrapers is their long term maintenance. Imagine having to renovate, or, god forbid, demolish, a 50 story building that's closely packed with other 50 story buildings. Even if this is possible, it's likely very costly and would be a logistical nightmare. Same goes for any structural defects or failures that can occur with a building as big as a skyscraper, eg. millenium tower in san francisco.

[@Kalmaro4152]

A couple of planes worked pretty well for Bush.

[@canoewithmeat]

Demolishing is actually relatively easy for modern skyscrapers. If you want the best examples then just look at how the World Trade Center towers both collapsed, no really I’m not joking. They get hit by the plane and then they fall into them selves. Mode skyscrapers have this as a feature for safety so that if there is a structural problem it won’t cause domino effect across the downtown. As for renovating, all that is really needed is skyscraper cranes, which are easier to put up than most people expect, and a system of winches and pulleys at its most basic. Now is the renovation probably going to be more than say a low rise apartment? Yes of course, but that’s just because of how they are designed.

[@mnj3t]

imagine demolishing burj khalifa

[@mnj3t]

@@Kalmaro4152 lol

[@Supergecko8]

I think that to demolish them you probably need to do the reverse of construction, at least for the top, before blowing it up like other buildings

[@Maxchillin420]

I think we should build 200 story hyper towers where residents are brought to their floors by hyperlifts and they commute to work by star ship from the roof

[@igigor646]

*with gamer floor

[@envadeh]

And elon musk is the emperor

[@KateeAngel]

We should build the skyscraper that reaches to the Moon! look at me, I am such a genius, I declare myself Tech Empress-goddess of the Moon now

[@pedrolmlkzk]

they should be bored out too! and have tesla tunnels for easy transport

[@donov25]

@@envadeh NGL when I got my keyboard with rainbow RGB I was surprised how much I actually liked it.

[@edi9892]

There's another problem: wind I'm not talking about the skyscraper having to withstand the power of the wind, but the building blocking the wind or worse funneling it. The prior can cause nasty stagnant air and the latter winds that can knock you over.

[@Cabochon1360]

For the street pedestrian, skyscrapers make artificial canyons.

[@skygge1006]

That’s a problem in London which is being solved by not using a grid and shaping buildings different ways

[@thelawyerdoggo]

@@softan it can been solved by not building skyscrapers in the first place ❤️

[@AN0NYM00S]

Isn't there a building in Manchester that makes an insanely annoying sound when the wind hits in from a certain angle?

[@edi9892]

@@thelawyerdoggo or having just one and then only shorter buildings around it...

[@harryvpn1462]

That's why we need the 255 block height limit

[@tempeorang]

indeeed minecraft veteran

[@nonec384]

mojang will move it up i think they didnt see this video

[@ZNotFound]

@@nonec384 At least a portion of it is going down.

[@MohammedAli-hl4mr]

256

[@Goultek]

But when you fall off the edge, be it 20 or 255 blocks, you die anyway

[@santiagoorgeira9142]

The "deserted offices" part is SO true, I live in a city that has a huge office town, the centre is literally 99% office buildings and mabye fast food for the office workers, so by day it is VERY busy, and by night it is one if the most dangerous parts of town do to there not being a single person there except mabye a mugger and a junkie

[@hughmungusbungusfungus4618]

That's probably more a product of zoning than the buildings themselves though. For example, you can go to any built up area in Tokyo and find them busy pretty much until the last train leaves. This is because Japan has much more lenient zoning laws than in most western countries. The ghost town doesn't exist because there's office towers, it exists because they can only build office towers.

[@santiagoorgeira9142]

@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 Yes of course

[@santiagoorgeira9142]

That's what I meant

[@cdemr]

@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 Western countries ≠ America European countries have lenient zoning laws as well.

[@MichaelWerneburg]

Sounds like Calgary in the early '90s.

[@brotlowskyrgseg1018]

One problem not mentioned here is that providing basic utilities becomes significantly more complicated and expensive when you build really tall. That's why skyscrapers need to waste a cosiderable amount of their floor space for mechanical floors solely dedicated to that purpose.

[@northernvikingr1294]

I mean it falls under logistics but yes

[@katjerouac]

It falls under logistics and cost

[@goury]

It's not significant, it just slightly more expensive. It's 2021, we have pump technology, wake up from these 50's myths.

[@Vysair]

Yes and no. Our standard had gone up so that's also why it had gotten more expensive. Plus, some apartment here have mall inside them.

[@magvad6472]

Maybe it's more complicated, but if it can be boiled down and standardized I don't think it is necessarily more expensive...especially vs the opportunity cost of the alternatives such as more roads, sewers, and underground infrastructure required to build outward...on top of maintenance cost of shorter housing. Obviously SUPER talls like Burj aren't efficient...but I don't think simply because 1 giant dick is inefficient doesn't mean there is a way to build tall that isn't fully economical and better for our environment.

[@mattc4013]

Because if we keep scraping the sky, it's going to get all scratched up.

[@Hebdomad7]

well I'd better get back working at the old 'blue sky mine'....

[@sorenkair]

Don't worry they're not building them out of diamonds so no scratches at level 6 and deeper grooves at 7.

[@vitmartobby5644]

Huh, isnt the ske pretty itchy?

[@svchineeljunk-riggedschoon4038]

But that would make it less transparent, and help global warming, so it's fine :)

[@junoguten]

Then eventually the sky will strike back, usually in the form of lightning.

[@strategossable1366]

"in 99% of cases, you don't even need to go above 10 floors" Me, living on the 13th floor of an apartment complex *looks around nervously*

[@muenchhausenmusic]

I live on the 8th floor, and I gotta say: The view DOES NOT get old!! Been living here for almost two years and me and my girlfriend still love it! I agree with the general point made in the video, though

[@thomasedwardharrison2879]

I live on the 26th floor

[@hsein3838]

@@muenchhausenmusic I've been living on the 8th floor for almost 20 years now and the view most definitely gets old. I'm always surprised by how amazed people are when they see the view for the first time.

[@ANTSEMUT1]

The dip in efficiency Adam is talking doesn't really become serious until you reach around 30 floors, so you've plenty of wiggle room.

[@lukaslasso]

@@thomasedwardharrison2879 27th ;)

[@laurivirtanen8636]

New idea: turn every skyscraper into a giant garage to store everyone's cars and turn every carpark into a building. This would cost billions, help no one and waste everyone's time since cars can no longer be parked in more than 10 places per city.

[@tokyothefox7078]

good idea- wait, american cities already do this lmao

[@pikamain9689]

Guys, i found elon musks youtube alt

[@kornkernel2232]

Please don't give them ideas lol

[@climatechangedoesntbargain9140]

Just abandon cars

[@Montcalf091]

Brilliant!

[@oditeomnes]

Singaporian city planner: "Ok we have two choices: Skyscrapers or invade Malasya to get more land".

[@Rix317]

They don't have to, they have good relationship w Malay they probably already own a lot of land in Malaysia, they might be able to purchase more territory to be recognized as Singapore if they put economic pressure

[@jonathanho618]

@@Rix317 how naive are you - no way malaysia will "sell" land to singapore. political loser for them

[@YanisLaureau]

Fun fact, Singapore actually imposes a height limit of 280 meters on buildings because of air traffic restrictions. While the law was not intended to fight the root cause of problems caused by skyscrapers as mentioned in the video, it does prevent unnecessary tall skyscrapers.

[@hellatze]

Finally someone with valid reason. This video is biased.

[@Gwydda]

@@hellatze That's why he says "they're the worst choice in 99,9% of cases". Singapore fits within that 0,01%. Don't argue the video of a bias where it clearly doesn't have it.

[@jonesjohnson6301]

As a civil engineer I'd like to point out this: - Everything above 8 stories becomes exponentially harder. Moment forces from the wind have a longer arm to the support in the ground. More weight leads to more structural support to carry it, leading to more weight. Elevator cables are also a pain. But that last one is a problem with a solution in a not so distant future. - Thing is however that I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment though. I can live with sky scrapers being packed away from city centres like at La Defense in Paris or Moscow city. Overall I prefer density over sprawling cities. The Burj Khalifa ground is not a good metric. It's of course a vanity project. Many other skyscrapers are due to high prices on the ground they stand and do not waste that much ground space. - Some institutions, such as hospitals, require patients to get from one department to another asap. Long hallways kill people. Lifts are much faster. Hence why many highrises now being built in my otherwise flat Denmark are hospitals. - The problem I see unadressed here are sunlight, wind and public infrastructure. Skyscrapers take sunlight from the surroundings, winds can be redirected in bad ways (or good ways) in addition to affecting the building and its occupants in several ways. And most importantly, you need a good and robust public infrastructure to haul a huge amount of people during rush hours, though that's always true no matter what. So the most important factor as to whether skyscrapers are good or bad is how well they perform and the city plan. They can be expensive when it comes to price, but as long as there's a buyer, that shouldn't matter.

[@FredPlanatia]

well, i think you support what Adam is saying which is that skyscrapers only fit when the exponentially high cost of going up is offset by very significant benefits. If it can really be shown that large vertical hospitals save lives then that would be one good reason to build one. I've seen a trend of consolidation of hospitals into great megahospitals in different cities and wonder whether its not just economic forces driving that in which case big hospitals (rather than several midsized one's spread across the city) might be the problem (particularly the longer travel distance in emergencies) and going vertical just an expensive solution.

[@cia4u401]

What's the solution to the elevator cables you were talking about?

[@AldanFerrox]

@@cia4u401 Linear motors.

[@ignaciomainardi5501]

@@cia4u401 Kone also designed new flat cables that allow elevators to travel higher.

[@chigeh]

The argument about density over sprawl pretty much debunks Adam's entire argument.

[@natelarouge7620]

Issue is mostly spacing, when you can’t build outward like in NYC or Hong Kong, you have to build up

[@jamjox9922]

Yes, but for many cities, they start building too early for the sake of making their city look like a "CITY." When they should focus on expanding outward and keep their growing city from becoming and urban hellscape with little-to-no nature and loads of parking and pavement for miles.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

HC is a weird outlier because its been artificially limited in how it can grow since it can't sprawl and people can't really leave to the countryside either. they had to build somewhat affordable high density housing for decades because they had no choice (things have changed now though)

[@SZiani]

In many instances you don't "have to" built up. NYC is half the density of Paris. Guess which one has all the skyscrapers and which one has only one.

[@barathrajkumar5564]

@@SZiani Paris has a population density of 24,000 and manhatten has population density of 74,000. And most of the skyscrapers are in manhatten.

[@van0tot100]

@@barathrajkumar5564 Yes, but probably New York has a more unequal density. Of courses the density in Paris is lower than in Manhattan

[@smbarbour]

Problem #3: Alienation - I live in a small town and I don't even know my neighbors even after 20 years. This has nothing to do with high-rise buildings nor solved by any different size of building.

[@dominicgunderson]

It absolutely is effected by building construction. Obviously there are other sources of alienation--the car being one.

[@deansmits006]

I live in single housing suburb, and hardly know my neighbors. Sometimes it's just personality

[@AverageSol]

@@deansmits006 You're totally right it could be many factors. It just means alienation from engineering will be certain where's doing so by your own choice is not an engineering problem

[@scinary7052]

@@dominicgunderson There is one source of alienation, YOU

[@Pragmatic_Optimist_MCR]

Exception prove the rule. You, as an individual, may live in isolation. But the way your neighborhood is designed, the way the mayoritiy of people life. It's not about the individual, but how people are affected by architecture on average. Small towns and suburbs are on average much more likely to build close neighborhood ties and communities than high-rise buildings. Statistically speaking even in your area there is probably a larger percentage of friendships between neighbours, even if you have none.

[@AbinashAdhikari]

Tokyo is the worst example you can give of this. There is literally no space here than to go up. Those skyscrapers are literally just office spaces.

[@seamuscos9186]

They’re actually excellent at keeping them efficient (Tokyo)

[@mike7546]

@@seamuscos9186 yeah, which is why, this video sounds like western ignorance to me, in fact india, china, Philippines and literally every asian country with skyscrapers need them for city centers, Skyscrapers are the first and only choice for many cities, not the last resort!

[@ChawletMelk]

When I visited Japan, I loved how vertical things were! Even something like.. a book store, or arcade went vertical over a few floors instead of using lots of ground area. Different food places on different floors. It seemed very efficient to me. Yes here in the US we don't utilize height in a smart way.

[@voxtur__7]

I agree. Tokyo is good at using its skyscrapers well. And Japan's architecture is marvelous at withstanding earthquakes. Burj khalifa is actually a good example of inefficient skyscrapers, considering it does not even have a sewer system.

[@Ninja_Bryden]

@@ChawletMelk Metropolitan areas here in the US were built by ultra wealthy out of touch people. Not hard to imagine they wouldn't have the greatest foresight...

[@13lackout360]

First I was confused by the environmental impact bit when I read “they make twice as much carbon emissions as low rises.” Thinking, “Well of course, but they’re over three times as tall. Isn’t that a improvement?” Then I read the sentence in the article that said that all those statistics are measured per square meter of floor. So it’s not that a skyscraper uses twice as much energy while having three or more times the space of a low rise. It’s that a skyscraper has twice the energy requirement of an equivalent amount of low rises…. Ouch…

[@SoundsSilver]

They use different building materials. Steel requires a great deal of heat to create. Concrete has environmental drawbacks too, though different. Also skyscrapers usually have more window coverage.

[@motormusique]

Not willing to base this conclusion based on a few sentences of a news article, as always. I would want to look at the actual research and the examples used and how it was calculated. We also need to think of available land as opportunity and energy expenditure - when something is spread horizontally it requires more energy for travel and impacts other uses

[@jordananderson2728]

@@SoundsSilver The article wasn't saying "twice the emissions to build", it was saying "twice the emissions to maintain per unit time".

[@yanDeriction]

sure. now consider the reduced emissions from shorter ground level travel distances in the city, and the improved safety and convenience of grade separated infrastructure made possible only by the huge volume of foot traffic. 2x carbon emissions are nothing if the base amount of carbon emissions are not that high in the first place

[@boathemian7694]

The taller the building the more foundation materials needed. Tall buildings have immeasurable tons of concrete and steel buried beneath them.

[@mrmatejator]

"5 10-stories commie blocks was all it took to beat world's tallest skyscraper" I am dying of laughter...

[@adryannthedefender701]

From a romanian perspective. Your not wrong. We have plenty of these blocks.

[@ripvanwinkle7689]

@@adryannthedefender701 and they are beautiful

[@alfredgreat1545]

@@ripvanwinkle7689 you are blind if you think they are beautiful

[@wantedwario2621]

Well i mean, his comparison was kind of majorly flawed since he used a lot of space around the Burj, but sure.

[@MishaFlower]

@@alfredgreat1545 They look fine. They're just aged up from lack of maintenance after 30 years of negligence. Look up some pictures of re-innovated blocks.

[@guydreamr]

Also, skyscrapers are absolute disaster zones in case of fire. There's a reason why over 300 firefighters died on 9/11.

[@mysteriousstranger2287]

One point though, you mention the view gets old quickly. In my experience, it doesn't. In 10 years I live on 16th floor, looking out the window has been one thing that never failed me.

[@drpropagandus]

Agreed. Was on the 24th floor with a sea and mountain view for a couple years, definitely didn't get old and I miss that view

[@lordmoncef5494]

@@drpropagandus cuz u looking at a sea and a mountain dumb

[@rscott2247]

Ya, I bet some views are worth paying for.

[@drpropagandus]

@@lordmoncef5494 lol no shit. You know I chose that on purpose, right?

[@MrManueleh]

Sitting there fondling your high powered rifle.

[@mdhazeldine]

I'm not convinced about the alienation argument. With high speed lifts and communal areas built at strategic points (even "sky gardens"), a lot of that can be overcome. What you didn't mention, which to me is more of an issue is fire safety and obvious issues like 9/11 where big buildings can become a target for terrorism and take ages to evacuate. There's also the issue of shadows being cast over the ground and wind tunnels. The other thing you mentioned which I'm not sure about is you put those 5 buildings on top of the Burj Khalifa to make the point that you can fit just as much people in low rise buildings, but the area covered by those buildings was much larger than the actual structure itself, so your figures don't seem to make sense to me. In an area like NYC, you get many towers very close together. Those are definitely going to have a higher density than if you built everything at 10 stories. But what I do agree with, is that if you built taller in the inner suburbs, you would then need less density in the urban core, and would spread people out more, which would put less pressure on services at the centre. The U.S. definitely suffers from a lack of mid-rise development. I feel like Europe is doing much better in this regard.

[@LPVince94]

Ok. Have you considered that he might've included the foundation of the Burj Khalifa in that comparison? Sky scrapers need huge areas for their foundations. Especially on such sandy ground.

[@behindyou666]

There's a reason why the "Volkshalle" is a bad idea. Skyscrapers goes against the principles of human architecture. They are way too big, confuses and gives anxiety to anyne near them.

[@mdhazeldine]

@@LPVince94 Hmm, well that's a Interesting point, but you don't see huge areas of nothing around skyscrapers in NYC, London or most other cities. You can have several very close together.

[@AdamSomething]

@Mark Hazeldine Thanks for the input! Let me respond to your points real quick: 1. lifts, communal areas, sky gardens Elevators can be fast, but it doesn't really matter if you have to wait a long time for them, because they're constantly in use. Imagine a 3000+ inhabitant massive skyscraper where you have to stand in line after work to the elevators. The solution of course would be to build lots of elevators, which, just like common areas and sky gardens, takes away potential residential space, meaning the apartments will be even more expensive. 2. safety I chose not to include terror attacks, since they're incredibly rare occasions. A fire would indeed be a huge pain to put out though. 3. the Burj Khalifa has a smaller footprint than the blocks As others have pointed out before me, I included the plot around the Burj Khalifa as part of its footprint. It's generally a bad idea to build skyscrapers so close to each other, since they're just too damn oppressive. Imagine living in the constant shadow of a giant steel and glass wall. Not the best thing for you psychologically. To reiterate, my issue with skyscrapers is that they shouldn't be a first solution. It's like having a cramped room with lots of wasted space, and instead of reorganizing it, you build another story above it. Wrong priorities.

[@tealmer3528]

Enjoy Philadelphia, the correct way to build a city, in my opinion (with the exception of the suburbs and Northeast). The downtown core is dense, but pretty quickly it evens out, and turns into a giant, pedestrian friendly, car not friendly (parking spots 1 mile from the core sell for $100k) mixed-use area of low-rise, dense, missing middle style housing, with a few mid-rises, that close to the core is populated by wealthy, educated people and further out is populated by much poorer people, making it affordable and pleasant for all.

[@anarchymatt]

Japan's 80% mountain, so building up makes sense for them in a lot of circumstances

[@lemonminus1589]

yet they stil don't, if you look at Tokyo for example, it doesn't have that many skyscrapers, considering the massive population

[@jkvz7184]

@@lemonminus1589 Tokyo is an exception I believe, since it's on a plain compared to other coastal cities in Japan. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

[@AverageAlien]

it makes sense for EVERYONE, Space is an issue for everyone, and skyscrapers are beautiful too, on top of that. This guy is just some commie larper that wants to replace everything with dull grey communist blocks

[@nicholasgutierrez9940]

@@jkvz7184 You is correct. It is on the Kanto plain, home of the treacherous Tokugawa. #Toyotomi4Life

[@guy6074]

@@AverageAlien he wasn’t saying that everything should be giant massive single apartment blocks. But he was saying that if they really want to fit a lot of people into a small space then the commie block is much much more practical. Idk what you mean space is an issue for everyone because this guy made the statement that sky scraper are unnecessary in 99% of situations and then proceeded to support that statement with genuine facts. Also you’re misusing the word larp, there is no commie larping going on in the video, you’re just using random internet buzz words you don’t understand because you think they can replace genuine criticisms. You saying “skyscrapers are beautiful” in support of your point is incredibly ignorant because he spent the entire video talking about practicality. What is more important, making sure a city runs efficiently, smoothly, affordably, and sustainably… or having tall buildings because you think they look kind of nice?

[@greghowell9986]

I’d love to see you revisit this, comparing the Burj to the Pentagon, which is the largest office building on Earth, and is only five stories, and contains a five acre (two hectare) park in the center. Also, it is possible to move between any two points in the Pentagon in under ten minutes, in spite of it being nearly half a kilometer across.

[@Torrent263]

10 mins is kinda a lot when you could hop on and elevator but the pentagon has plumbing so 😀

[@MiketheNerdRanger]

@@Torrent263 i think he means walking across the entire building rather than going down floors. With only five, I imagine that would take less than 30 seconds. Also yeah, plumbing. Nuff said 🤣

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@Torrent263 indoor plumbing!?!? What is this? The future?!

[@vegeta4693214]

Half a kilometer is huge for a building, but it's actually a short distance to walk. It's probably less than what most people walk from their house to school.

[@TheMickydowling]

Why are we comparing the Burj (the tallest building on earth, built in saudi arabia, the capital of form over function) to function oriented buildings elsewhere? Wouldn't it be way more honest to compare the Burj to one of the Palm islands the Saudis are building? That way we wouldn't be comparing apples to oranges. A 10-20 storey commie block will fit many more people than a 5 storey one and, depending on land prices, it could be cheaper.

[@killerfoxes2909]

My first time disagreeing with you. I live in Seoul, which has arguably the best public transit in the world. It has a lot green spaces as well. And finally it has tall apartment buildings. I myself have lived in three buildings between 15-20 stories tall. The elevator does not take 10 minutes here, maybe it does in Western countries, im not sure…but here it does not. I am also a tutor, so I’ve been to many of my students houses which are up to 30 floors in the air. The elevators in those buildings are insanely fast. Seriously 10 seconds to go 20 floors. Also most apartment complexes like that have green space completely surrounding it and even large city parks nearby. Seoul is also famous for community mountains. Usually not tall, apartment complexes will surround the local hill or mountain that has walking trails throughout. Like, I see some of your issues, but Seoul solves most of them. Also my apartments have not been that expensive. It is common for poor people to live in taller apartment complexes. Now finally, main thing. Seriously I think this height is necessary. Not only are most apartment complexes in Korea usually 10-15 floors, and 15-20 in more packed areas, but…that’s 90% of the housing in the area. When your city is overcrowded, you got to have taller buildings or you just can’t fit everyone. And these apartments aren’t huge by the way, by North American standards, even rich Koreans live in small apartments. Maybe some of the things you say could be true in less densely populated areas, but I really think Seoul simply doesn’t have the land area to build smaller. Edit : I see you addressed in the last 30 seconds [i should learn to always finish every second before commenting lol] that you are okay with them if other options are exhausted, when I would go ahead and say they were in many areas of Seoul. Trust me, Korean land owners want to build cheaply for example.

[@DavidJohnson-dp4vv]

The fact is everything you said is true for most large cities in the world. Doesn't matter if it's LA, Singapore, Shenzhen, Lagos, Rio or a long list of other cities. They all need tall apartment blocks to help bring down the cost of living. I've been to Seoul I don't know how many times and I wish more American cities took the approach of cheap public transportation along with tall apartment blocks. In LA, San Francisco, Miami and long list of other cities people complain about the cost of housing. The only solution are a ton of high rise apartments and new subway lines.

[@DieFlabbergast]

"... Seoul, which has arguably the best public transit in the world." Tokyo would like to dispute the accuracy of that statement.

[@killerfoxes2909]

@@DieFlabbergast Well then Tokyo would be wrong. Seoul has the most train tracks by distance in the world, it has the most traffic of any subway system in the world, and....here is the kicker, despite being, as I just said busier than the Tokyo subway, the trains are rarely, RARELY packed. In Tokyo, I've seen attendents shoving people onto the subway because there are so many people there. That has never happened in Seoul ever, again, despite actually being busier than the Tokyo subway. Also, Seoul subway is incredibly easy to get around. Tokyo's is a nightmare. Now you can say : That's because there are more people in Tokyo, except I've just disputed that on two accounts. Seoul has more trackway than Tokyo despite having less people, and has more traffic in their subway sytem despite having less people. Seoul's is vastly, like vastly superior to Tokyo. Oh, and I forgot. Tokyo's system and trains are just...old. They are older than Seoul's system and train and it is obvious when you are on there. Seoul's train are like spectacularly clean and modern feeling. Lilke seriously, comparing these two systems tells me you most likely have not lived in both places. I have. They aren't comparible. Yes, Tokyo is so so so so much better than anything in the United States [I haven't been to Europe], but it is horrible as compared to Seoul. Even my Japanese ex admitted this, and she was horribly racist of Koreans, so that was not an easy thing for her to admit.

[@killerfoxes2909]

@@DieFlabbergast Oh yeah, and also, if you had to actually have a real competitor for Seoul's system, then it would be Hong Kong or Singapore, which both have ridiculously efficient systems as well. However, when I was there the bus system was clearly not as complex as Seoul's bus system, and that is also part of a public transportation network.

[@killerfoxes2909]

@@DieFlabbergast Oh crap I forgot something. Seoul's system is also like...half the price of Tokyo's system despite all the superior things I just mentioned. And Seoul's system is way more accessible to non-citizens. I, having not been able to read Hangul or Hiragana/Katakana upon arriving in both countries, was able to perfectly naviagate Seoul Subway system, and I couldn't basically do anything on Tokyo's system. It was so hard to get around the first while I was there. Also Seoul system has 22 lines, and Tokyo's has 13, and Seoul's has 728 stations compared to 285 in Tokyo...again despite Seoul being a less heavily congested and populated city than Tokyo. Okay, I've destroyed Tokyo's subway system, can I stop now?

[@mrparts]

I’ll just add that I grew up in an 18 story building and I don’t remember anyone there being alienated or isolated. Pretty much everyone knew each other and socialized. I believe the key element was that most families had children of all ages so children playing together in the park at ground level was the element that reduced isolation and brought people together.

[@Ahmed-N]

But the 15 minute walk to the park must have made everyone want to sit in their apartments with popcorn in one hand and a spoon of ice cream in the other! Skyscrapers are bad! This guy's a joke.

[@ZZZZZZ-ek2pq]

@@Ahmed-N wah wah wah wah

[@seanriokifarrell]

@@Ahmed-N Like all low rise buildings are 70s socialistic housing projects with parks and playgrounds interspaced. Especially in the US there is reasonably good chance that you will walk at least 15 min horizontally. On the other hand the high rise I lived in on the 12th floor (of 25), had gym, pool and park integrated into the complex and it took 3 min to get there.

[@recurrenTopology]

In fairness, at 18 stories the building you grew up in is only around half the height of what is generally considered the minimum threshold for a skyscraper. But I take your point, there are many more important factors in whether or not architecture is isolating than its height, and that was probably his weakest point.

[@nicklemen]

@@recurrenTopology yeah it’s unclear what the minimum height he considers a skyscraper for the purpose of this video’s message. If he said it I missed it

[@ArgaJacint]

As a fellow Hungarian, I'd just like to add that those so called "Village house" type residential buildings aren't that great to live in either. It is a relatively common source of humour in Hungarian stand-up that living in such places is pretty bad. Annoying neighbours, small living space, etc. I guess it is a better solution than a skyscraper if the goal is to give a lot of people homes in as small of an area as possible, but if the space lets it, houses that accomodate one/two families only, and each building having its own garden/backyard is much preferrable.

[@salsamancer]

Obviously a small home is better, but that doesn't work in large cities, and there's too many humans for everybody to live in farms and villages

[@RB-kb3tc]

Keep in mind the example in the video was a floorspace comparison. Parameters like how you divide that area, how well soundproofed the walls are, etc. aren't inherent to one type of building. You could build a village house shaped building to the same luxury standard as the Burj Khalifa... Except for windows, you simply couldn't fit as many.

[@marcodiepold8620]

The problem with the village houses in comparison to Towers is, that they cut the view axis, which makes humans unhappy

[@neolexiousneolexian6079]

As a Canadian, apparently single-family houses drive prices really high and in turn make everyone go broke. ...Should probably have a mix.

[@UnpredictableSB]

As an american, I can tell you the homeless are much happier in wild than they are in small homes for... one/two families!? Holy shit, we talking about whole families now? Ungrateful bastards

[@Life4YourGames]

One more thing: They are an absule DEATHTRAP in case there is a fire or something similar. Up to the fifth/sixth story, firefighters can easily rescue you via. windows, balconies etc. but above that - good luck. Additionally, they have to CLIMB THE STAIRS to get to the fire so actually fighting the fire will be delayed substatially.

[@Teutathis]

What's funny is that studies found that 4-storeys seem to be the energy efficient sweet-spot per m2.

[@MiketheNerdRanger]

So basically if the 39th floor, or whatever, catches fire, your best solution is believing you can fly?

[@Life4YourGames]

@@MiketheNerdRanger Kind of, yeap. If you can't take the usual ways or emergency stairways down and cannot be rescued via. helicopter from the roof. There's footage from 9-11 where people are jumping out of the 80th floor or so just to not be trapped by the fire.

[@jhh1451]

@@MiketheNerdRanger wrong, all skyscrapers build after nine Eleven have a specific Layout that makes a close emergency staircase avaliable to you where ever you are. The staircases are also build to be unaffected by fire on the floor. There are enough architecture channels explaining this, idk why the other guy just talkes out of his A.

[@bisk1407]

Besides the ONE, can you think of examples where that has been an issue?

[@300blackcats]

as someone living in hong kong, where state-funded residential high-rises complete with public amenities have been a thing for manny years because of the high population density, i respectfully disagree. people can socialize with their neighbors living on the same floor without ever leaving their floor, and leaving their flat does not take that much time ...

[@ccauyeung9116]

東亞經濟高度依賴外銷--工業也好，服務業也好，我地對海外市場既依賴，表示東亞城市至少係追平歐美經濟體系人均收入前，都依然迫埋一齊係海邊。TLDR：我地唔大可能享受東北式城規，因為我地唔係歐美，and for now, that’s okay.

[@Jinkypigs]

I agree, even though hongkong public housing policy is an utter joke and complete disaster.... the need for skyscraper are not invalidated by that.

[@ralphstern2845]

One would hardly call Hong Kong hi-rise an “ideal” planning or housing solution. Its a product of pure greed and exploitation.

[@dsarmy1]

A lot of newer residential high rises are built with common areas such as, gyms, pools and other amenities. Also you are more likely to bump into your neigbors in the hallway.

[@peterdeep]

I have lived in a high-rise with 500 flats for more than two years. I do not know anybody who lives here. I have met many of my neighbours, in the lobby or the fitness centre or the swimming pools, but I never see them again. By contrast, I know many people who work in the neighbourhood.

[@eye776]

What many people forget is that "Village Houses", just as every other "Khrushchev-style" building, were intended as temporary accommodations, because it took longer to build better, structurally safer, more "traditional" buildings. "Khrushchev-style" buildings are rated for about 50 years of service, and some are already starting to cave in. Many of them were pretty much supposed to be demolished, inspected and rebuilt by this point.

[@nutellafoxvideos7350]

Yeah... Czechia already has spent a lot doing remodels and upgrades of their Panelaks to extend their lifespans and make them more plesant to live in in general. They had rather poor insulation and not always the best airflow before they did some fixes. They're now more colorful too.

[@eye776]

@@nutellafoxvideos7350 Styrofoam insulation and a new coat of paint doesn't change the fact that these prefabricated buildings were engineered to last ~50 years and anything extra is just gravy. They did the same insulation and paint thing in Romania too, but that won't fix any deep inner structural cracks. Even if the "skeleton" of the building is not structurally compromised, the concrete prefab slabs making up the outer walls are going to start to "sag" by now.

[@nutellafoxvideos7350]

@@eye776 yeah. I'm aware. They have only so much more time left to figure out something else before there's major disasters from failiures killing whole families.

[@薔薇-k2m]

"Khrushchev-style" buildings were actually meant to last for 15 years max, and Brezhnev started building new types of housing pretty early in his "term". But considering that those buildings were barely repaired, they are in a very good condition for something that must've been out of order three times now.

[@ralphstern2845]

How long do you think the Burj Khalifa will stand?

[@Auron710]

I was waiting to hear how this could be solved by building a train instead.

[@GRANOLA77]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@hemanthsunny983]

lmao

[@sophisticatednebula4236]

To your point about alienation, a friend of mine lives on the 27th floor, visiting him is always a treat because it's much easier to go out, have fun and socialise. Even though I live in the idealistic layout you had in mind, 2 floors Max per building, spread out a lot, I've got 2 parks and 3 sport complexes near me. Ironically, it takes me longer to get places compared to my friend because of just how accessible his area is. Going to the grocery store takes him 5 minutes when it takes me 20. Socialising at the park is hardly a thing anymore, nobody wants people approaching them, it's not seen as a "social" space, just a public one. Compare that to the clubs my friend has access to, whose whole point is to socialise. Maybe these experiences are purely anecdotal to me and don't reflect the experience most people have, but I was fairly shocked listening to the alienation point because of just how different it has been in my experience.

[@joshuahendricks9558]

It's because he kinda just throws darts at the board

[@thunderbird1921]

He's PARTIALLY correct in this video. However I think he leaves out a bunch of other factors, like some cities do better with car flow, etc. and also the decline in socialization across western society in general. It really depends on the situation.

[@le2380]

@@thunderbird1921 Yes, and i would not call going to the club high quality socialization, you can barely hear people talk over the music.

[@SD78]

Yep. It's completely laughable to claim that it's difficult to socialise if you're living in a skyscraper in the city's main social hub. It's about as convincing as the '15 minute elevator rides'.

[@reappermen]

Uhm, where did you get his 'ideal' beeing two story max buildings from? Not sure if it came across strong enought in this video, but if you couple it with others he made it should be pretty clear he advocates for whag is basically a modern, well built version of commie blocks as the optimal solution, so buildings with plenty of greenery and such between buildings, and 5-10 stories tall, stretching for a dozen or more units (flats) in length for each building.

[@pelicanlogs4782]

I live in a surburb. No one talks to each other, the park is filled with individual people or couples, not active dialogue, this idea that people will naturally come together and form some vibrant community is naive at best. The only places that do operate like that from what I've experienced travelling into the city, is large apartment buildings, with 20-25 stories, where they have a pool, courtyard and other communal spaces.

[@ThalesWell]

I've lived in dense urban cities and in suburbs. The only place I've experienced with a sense of community is a college campus. But overall, yes, suburbs feel much less communal.

[@JoniWan77]

Alienation and lack of communal socialization is a much larger issue in general. Not building skyscrapers will not fix it, but building them may have a more negative effect than other options. Residential-only suburbs may even be worse than many skyscrapers in regards to alienation. Communal socialization needs proper communal spaces, mostly commercial ones and only works over time when strangers regularly see each other in the same place. For me local cafés or restaurants did work that way. I didn't make friends that way, but I do recognize staff and regulars and feel closer to them in a way. I could not imagine not having such a place nearby where I can just go to spend some time and people watch. And because people have varied interests it is important to have varied communal spaces nearby. It's complicated. Colleges and schools work so well for socialization because many people in the same state of life see each other regularly. Nothing is more effective in getting people closer to each other.

[@xyzsame4081]

Cityplanning _can_ encourage interactions. Culture plays a role. It worked in Eastern Germany despite the badly planned satellites cities. But people were encouraged / nudged to engage in the community, and in groups. In Vienna the urban public housing complexes starting with the 1920s (a few floors maybe 3 or 4) were built with community in mind. Inner yard and houses built around, spaces where children could play. Small ! parks nearby and people used public transportation so they met on the way out.

[@marinolepre5271]

Centrally planned suburbs are the other face of the coin of skyscrapers. They are alienating and unnatural. The only housing and living development that promotes an healthy, socially favorable and pleasant life are those that grows naturally in the course of decades or centuries dictated by real people needs and aspirations. Come to Italy and visit one hundred larger cities and "comuni" (small sized cities), and see how they developed in the centuries until 1940 (after that the USA won the war and new constructions was ugly and low quality american style buildings).

[@pelicanlogs4782]

@@marinolepre5271 If the whole thing is designed for it or not is the big issue, suburbs can also have communities if designed that way, much in the same way highrise apartments can, its utilitarian vs culture focused, which is the primary issue, not what building will succeed or not though.

[@ShiftingDrifter]

Number 5: Skyscrapers are death traps. A firelighter once told me the safest building height is no higher than 11 stories.

[@tunasub6111]

I dunno man I wouldn’t take safety advice from a firelighter

[@tidepods5506]

@@tunasub6111 I mean, the 9/11 victims probably wish they were in lower floors lol

[@ethanmorrison814]

@@tidepods5506 I think you missed his joke

[@kalinandonov2799]

@@tunasub6111 🤣🤣🤣

[@Nhatanh0475]

@@ethanmorrison814 Absolutely.

[@khaoscero]

"Skyscrapers can only be used for two things" Here in Japan they have pools and baths, almost entire skyscrapers just for restaurants, cafes and shopping, karaoke, music schools, doctor clinics, offices, english schools - all kinds of stores. Literally anything. Your advantages of normal height housing is objective and effective as europe shows, but your hate for skyscrapers seems mostly subjective. I think skyscrapers are beautiful and inspiring. ESPECIALLY when interwoven with old architecture. London has some of that Tokyo Marunouchi etc has some of that.

[@vithalgoel3937]

Well skycrapers are definitely beautiful, useful in places with land shortage and the interesting part is that most of the tallest skyscrapers are actually in busy, expensive and developed cities where land area is expensive. So, I think people mostly only build skyscrapers when they need to. I have not seen many sub-urban, rural or small cities with huge buildings so maybe his point in this video doesn't hold that much weight as some of his others.

[@hughmungusbungusfungus4618]

As someone who lives and works in Tokyo, there's pretty much nowhere else but Shinjuku, Otemachi or Shinagawa that's convenient for everyone.

[@strakhovandrri]

Me and my demand of the oxygen together think that it's better when english schools and restaurants are divided by plots of greenery.

[@bobmango8472]

"your hate for skyscrapers seems mostly subjective" that's the one

[@shrimpflea]

They should go underground.

[@AdvocatusThei]

Using the Burj Khalifa, a vanity project if there ever was one, as an example of inefficient use of land is very disingenuous, and an example of what I find so frustrating about Adam's videos - lack of historical context. Skyscrapers where first built in American cities specifically with the intent of maximizing capacity for a given footprint.

[@AlpineDividends]

To maximize the available space for suburbia

[@alanhorton7300]

All skyscrapers are vanity projects.

[@myles1614]

@@alanhorton7300 no

[@jeremyepstein7977]

Exactly - the Burj Khalifa was not built just to "maximize residential space". That's not it's main purpose. Just saying that the Burj Khalifa is stupid because it doesn't house as many people as the Hungarian Village House is an argument with little logic.

[@fufy3820]

Your points literally don't make any sense. Just because it's maximizing the capacity for a given footprint, doesn't mean it's the most efficient way to build a city, and that is what he is pointing out. If they were specifically invented for that purpose, then fine, but how to you explain literally every city being filled to the brim with these obnoxious buildings? Why can't cities instead be built along the lines of Paris, with community and aesthetics being the main driver, instead of wanton prestige? There's a sense of legacy in a city like that, which has a defined identity, and isn't just a copypaste of new york city. Also, when you look at buildings like the empire state building, the people who made it literally loopholed size restrictions to get a taller building. That's not maximizing capacity for a given footprint, that's just foolishly building a taller building because you're egotistical, and that is why skyscrapers continue to be built. It's not where people want to live, it's not where people should want to live. Build better cities, build cities with character and soul, don't make it a soulless capitalistic rat race.

[@person9097]

Yeah- but if we're not going up we're going everywhere else. Expanding cities and urban areas will result in higher levels of deforestation via a need for space. Plus, expansion increases the cost of transportation and carbon emissions through public and personal vehicles. Although I'm not very experienced on this topic so I might very well be wrong

[@joevdb9232]

you're right about the important advantages but the video is also right. as you build taller, returns depreciate. you need to put aside more and more floor space for the enormous plumbing, electrical & ventilation systems, more elevator shafts and stairs. costs get vastly higher as everything gets way harder to design and build and it becomes impossible to make the rooms anything except ten million dollar condos or office space for elite companies. the skyscraper is essentially built by and for elites. it is useful to no-one else. you must build shorter and cheaper if you want actual people to be able to live there. TL;DR there is an upper limit to how tall and land-dense we can (usefully and sustainably) build, given the technologies we currently have, and skyscrapers overshoot that.

[@davidegaruti2582]

Well , cities can be built of ten stories high building villages wich are as efficient as skyscrapers as far as space is concerned as shown in the vid. , Besides by building more efficient transportation ( rails ) , dismantle the suburbs completely , and creating more walkable/bikeable cities , we might not expand too much , And besides , going upward has limits : the higher you go , the more elevators you need , the more elevators the less space , in short going up requires a lot of energy Feel free to reply and share toughts if this didn't satisfy you ...

[@pedrolmlkzk]

there is not enough people on earth for urban spaces to be in any meaningful piece of the world's land area, there is plenty of space for city expansion

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

In the US at least, cities are absurdly sprawl-y. If they were just brought up to the density of a typical European city, you could demolish every building higher than four stories and still use less land than before.

[@GDIdoujinmediaworks]

In this very video he showed how the Budapest village blocks fit into the footprint of the Burj. Supertall skyscrapers need very deep, very wide bases. What can be regulated are setbacks -- they can be made smaller. Medieval cities and cities on small island nations are not as sprawling as the cities of car-centric continental countries and are very walkable.

[@Zeddicalex]

we love our alienation glass houses don't we folks

[@formercrow5242]

Building ivory towers proved to be too expensive

[@bsadewitz]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJzSqIlngZ2fY5I

[@Zeddicalex]

@@formercrow5242 what, are you saying minas tirith isn't a zenith of architecture

[@pedrolmlkzk]

specially the ones built with 0 decorations that look like shit because it's "practical"

[@giovanni-cx5fb]

I think they makes sense within the American tradition of viewing your fellow citizen as intrinsically yucky.

[@lain2k3]

Having lived in China for 3 years on the top (31st) floor of my building, there was plenty of interaction in the public square below, and the roof of the building used for gardens, clothes drying, and picnics. Given the population density of China, they are probably justified in going higher, but still, 20-25 floors is still very nice as long as there are actual public spaces around them.

[@TheWerelf]

I don't know about alienation, I'm quite OK with living on a high floor. I don't feel any difference from living on a 4th floor or 40th in terms of alienation, modern elevators are fast.

[@linaskranauskas]

From the 4th floor, you can see your children playing in the playground. There are many other aspects.

[@GG-jn9fx]

@@linaskranauskas there can be playgrounds on the 38th floor. With open architecture, you could see your kid at the playground. Hypothetically speaking.

[@linaskranauskas]

@@GG-jn9fx What a great idea. Who needs daylight.

[@GG-jn9fx]

@@linaskranauskas “Am I a joke to you” - Glass

[@iqbalindaryono8984]

@@GG-jn9fx It's simpler, cheaper and more spacious to build playgrounds on the ground floor than it is to build it in the 40th/30th/20th/10th floor. Ignoring all that, there's not that big of an economic incentive for developers to make playgrounds over apartments. It's like comparing being able to buy a brand new house/start another project vs. making 2 dozen kids healthier(?)

[@darthutah6649]

I agree that skyscrapers aren't always the most efficient way to build things but here are a few pointers. 2:00 If the building has elevators, getting to a park next door would take no more than 5 minutes, even from the top floor. 3:14 I see the point you're trying to make but I don't think it's really fair to use the Burj Khalifa as your example. No phrase better describes Dubai than awesome but impractical. Not to be crude but middle eastern cities have gotten involved in the contest of dick measuring. The Willis tower has 418,000 m2 and is only 1,450 ft tall in comparison to the Burj Khalifa which is 2,717 ft.

[@undrscrH]

dude he just made a video about why he hates Dubai

[@dixonpinfold2582]

When he said it would take 15 minutes to get down from the 50th floor I thought 'What am I doing listening to this guy?'

[@xanderunderwoods3363]

@@dixonpinfold2582 yeah same, I took an elevator down 89 floors once, it took less than 5 minutes, and I had no problems with socializing. He seems frustrated at life for some reason. Life is hard on everyone so I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

@@xanderunderwoods3363 That last part is true. I've started trying to pretend that every person I encounter is very upset, because about two thirds of them are. That's the best way to deal with them. As for the elevator thing, even under 5 minutes sounds long. In my old building 29 floors took one minute and at my work 53 floors took 45 seconds. Most elevators seem pretty fast. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[@georgeheld1901]

@@dixonpinfold2582 yeah most elevators are much faster than we give them credit for

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

In sci-fi they always show crowded planets covered in skyscrapers, but when you run the numbers for the given population of those planets every person aught to have a massive empty warehouse worth of space between them

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

Coruscant in Star Wars aught to have a population that dwarfs the rest of the galaxy

[@axelprino]

@@ENCHANTMEN_ aren't the lower levels of Coruscant basically abandoned? I think most people only leave in the top layers. There's a sci-fi novel called The World Inside where like 99% of the population on earth lives in massive towers and the rest of the world is farm land, the characters spend their whole lives living in one tower, never knowing the outside world or other "cities". It's wild, but a fascinating read.

[@redenginner]

One thing that 40k gets right that Terra has over a quadrillion people in its 12 kilometer thick crust of heavily built up urban sprawl.

[@awhahoo]

@@axelprino im gonna have to read that

[@alex29443]

Yeah, I thinkit's a case of tv people talking to proper sci fi writers, getting scared and reducing the numbers of residents down to a level that they think people will be able to understand.

[@TOMiX1024]

The Burj Khalifa is not built for efficiency but for prestige. Better comparison would be against generic NYC sky scraper.

[@tuliolaanen9458]

I soo disagree with the alienation argument. I lived in HK for a few years where everyone lives in skyscrapers. I found people to be outside socializing all day long, only to return to their apartment to sleep basically. Now I'm living in the Netherlands without a skyscraper in sight. Here I feel like every day at 6pm everyone flocks to their comfy houses disappearing behind their television. I'd say a city with low-rise houses alienates people much more than one with many skyscrapers. And I don't know where you live but an elevator from the 50th to the ground does not take 15min lol.

[@tanveerhasan2382]

I concur

[@j3dwin]

I think his high-rise alienation theory is just armchair speculation. I've lived in a single-family house for 21 years and don't even know my next door neighbors.

[@thatdognotthepuppy5809]

@@j3dwin I think the alienation argument is really dependant on other factors as well as your building. I've lived in apartment blocks and not known my neighbours, I've lived in blocks where I did know my neighbours, and I've lived in conventional houses where both instances happened too. I think it's largely dependent on size and class, I noticed that in the smaller blocks I stayed in, neighbours knew eachother because they couldn't help but bump into eachother- and in the more dense blocks people just kept to themselves, likely because they've just had a long day's work and don't want to talk to a stranger as they get back to their shitty, packed-in apartment. There's also culture, which is a topic for another day. Some people are more friendly than others, the UK (where I am) is a pretty "better keep to myself" kind of place in many apartment complexes.

[@ff-qf1th]

anecdotal much?

[@ff-qf1th]

@@j3dwin that's a bad thing wtf?

[@Elite7555]

Of course, there are even more problems with logistics. What do you do when elevators aren't functioning? How to get big furniture to the 100th floor? Rescuing people (not only from fires, but for example after a stroke or heart attack) becomes a challenge. You need some kind of reception which accepts packages for thousands of people. And of course, I have heard from people getting sea sick inside their own appartment because the building swings so much. Most scyscrapers don't really serve any practical use, but are prestige projects.

[@sherrysicle]

the second point is kinda dumb there’s service elevators

[@clarkkent8765]

Freight elevators

[@TheWerelf]

Do you live in 18th century? How to get big furniture to 100th floor? Well I guess magic, because somehow people are doing it. All the problems with logistics are already solved, otherwise there wouldn't be as many skyscrapers. We don't need to build them everywhere, but there are places where building them makes sanse.

[@freshair9133]

@@TheWerelf sanse 😂

[@QuarioQuario54321]

The Willis Tower has 104 elevators, 16 of which are double deck.

[@FieryVigil]

Speaking from Japan rn I can say that this is pretty true about a lot of places, in the states for example. There are probably cases where bigger buildings don't work and aren't effective use of space and resources. That's why you don't see skyscraper type buildings in medium size towns. In Tokyo and many other places around Japan for instance there just isn't enough land for what you are saying. People don't generally own cars and parking space is a myth, space is used very effectively in most places, and the only way to go is up. You can have residences on the first floor with a ramen shop and a convenience store, the second floor has more residences and a thrift store, third floor a bar, etc. Sometimes the only solution that makes sense it to build up and have good public transport.

[@LilliHerveau]

Having incredibly dense areas is probably a problem in itself too. And having strolled for a month in Tokyo's streets, I can say I hardly gets denser. For sure every nook and cranny is used. It's difficult to put all the tradeoffs in the right direction :/

[@Lin-vh7uv]

So, like he said word for word in the video, we should build skyscrapers only when we've exhausted all the other options he listed. Thanks for repeating what was explicitly stated in the video during the conclusion. Perhaps you didn't watch the whole thing?

[@barbanousse]

But in all seriousness, if you look at Tokyo outside of Shinjuku and Shibuya and a few other "hub" areas, it's mostly 2-3 storey single family homes and a few areas with residential blocks, of which most are 2-3 floors. I once saw a 10 storey residential block in Tokyo and thought wow, I should photograph that (and I'm only half joking). I am always surprised by how many tiny buildings there are in Tokyo, given all the talk about Japan's limited space. Not to mention if you take a few steps outside of Tokyo, most smaller cities don't even have residential blocks, it's all small single occupancy houses or at most a few 2-storey residential houses with 10-15 apartments. I guess it's related to tradition and earthquake safety, but I really don't buy the argument that sky scrapers are needed in Tokyo because there isn't enough space in Japan. That being said, Japan has some of the coolest use of space in cities for commercial spaces. I love the notion of placing shops and restaurants on floors other than ground, having buildings that house many different shops and restaurants, with lots of signs outside indicating on what floor each thing is...it's really nice and helps create those densely packed streets where you rarely have to walk far for all your needs. In western cities you're either in a Mall or you need to traverse the length of long streets with lots of ground floor storefronts and all other floors are just offices or apartments... ehh, off topic now..

[@chromacat248]

There's a skyscraper in my region that is completely isolated. There's just a regular area with a bunch of one-story buildings with random franchises, then in the middle of it you have a random skyscraper that can be seen for miles. No idea why it's there, never been inside it nor do I know what's inside it.

[@michasokoowski6651]

I know one area in my country's city as well... the best part is that this skyscraper looks like a giant d

[@Malisteen]

They're also difficult & dangerous to demolish when they inevitably come to the end of their lifespan.

[@doltBmB]

Unless you commit a trillion dollar insurance scam and blame it on terrorists!

[@singledijjiti.q.2294]

Yeah but its fun to watch

[@Malisteen]

@@doltBmB yup, and the earth is flat, the moon landing was faked, ancient rome never existed, and bigfoot controls the IMF. because if an anonymous troll said so then it must be true.

[@springer-qb4dv]

Yes single story buildings can be repaired, but not skyscrapers. All skyscrapers are gigantic waste of energy and resources and will represent nice marker for ruin of mankind

[@syasyaishavingfun]

@@doltBmB ok this is the most interesting theory yet

[@Pedulatsch]

Even tho I don't think skyscrapers are the best things ever, I'd still say that on average they are way better at land usage compared to other buildings. The Burj Kalifa is a bit of an extreme example, if you did the same comparison in Manhatten you'd get a different result.

[@Arthemax]

But most of the high population density of Manhattan comes from the fact that most buildings are 5-6 stories, not the few areas (Midtown and the Financial district) that have skyscrapers. Many of the high rise areas have so much space between the blocks that they have lower effective density. The reason why Brooklyn has lower population density than Manhattan is because there's more park area (not a bad thing) and there are more 2-3-4 story buildings (even large areas with detached homes) especially further away from Manhattan. If there are stats of what floors people on Manhattan live on, I have a feeling that more people live on the 4th and 5th floor than all the people living above the 10th floor.

[@alanhorton7300]

Manhattan is an outlier because many of the buildings there were built before required minimum setbacks. If you tried to build a neighborhood like Manhattan today, you would have to break every zoning law in the book.

[@DavidJohnson-dp4vv]

@@alanhorton7300 And NYC is third for most skyscrapers only beat by Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Skyscrapers are a good thing for dense cities.

[@DavidJohnson-dp4vv]

@dirty cats on the counter If that's the case then skyscrapers aren't a problem at all because if you're saying most buildings in Manhattan are only a few stories then this video is pointless.

[@DavidJohnson-dp4vv]

@dirty cats on the counter You realize that's where most skyscrapers are being built right in densely populated cities? Dubai is an outlier. Almost every other city in top 50 are densely populated and probably need mor skyscrapers as well as public transportation. It would be like if in 15 years LA went on a building boom and looked like Tokyo (along with viable public transportation.

[@l.d.3043]

The "village house" is definitely not a solution. In France in the 1960s, they built massive amounts of these wall like structures, reshaping the suburbs' landscape. As a matter of fact, the alienation became so significant there that they were finally made illegal to build.

[@hansolav5924]

they must have built them wrong. I believe they do their best work surrounding a central space. that's where you get your communities(well, if the 'disease' were not a thing)

[@taliesine.8343]

But was that a problem of the fact that it was a non skyscraper or that the design of that type of building was flawed? Like you can make them work aswell. Showing an example of when it didn't work doesn't disprove it.

[@TheNicestPig]

@@hansolav5924 They just suck at building them, gotta ask real commies to build real commieblocks

[@arandombard1197]

I don't think he was suggesting the village house was a good idea, just that you could achieve the same results of a skyscraper much more easily. Realistically, mid-sized apartment buildings should be more than enough to cover most housing needs.

[@BrickBlocker]

The bigger problem is that affordable housing often attracts low income households, which then compleatly stops heterogeneous societies and keeps poor with poor, or migrants with other migrants. You can see it in the suburbs of Paris for example. You need to make sure that societies don't become homogeneous in such village houses, otherwise social problems will escalate.

[@schrodingersbraincell5861]

This was all super interesting! I agree with a lot of it. Unfortunately, I live in Australia, and here urban sprawl is a huge problem. A good way of having more people density, while still allowing people to have decent apartment size is building vertically. I honestly think that building vertically could be quite useful in OZ, but they don’t need to be ridiculously tall

[@jamesbedukodjograham5508]

Small Appartment Buildings are far better than those large apartment buildings out there

[@sniedendepoes]

Or just less people instead of this MORE MORE MORE all the time

[@jdillon8360]

I'm from Australia too, Melbourne specifically. I feel like we're doing it all wrong in Australian cities at the moment. We're jamming in collosal towers into the CBD, Docklands and South Melbourne, and then pretty much everything else is single story homes miles out in the suburbs. I spent a year in Denmark, and I honestly think most European cities have the ideal balance. In Copenhagen, space usage was very efficient, as pretty much all the buildings were about 6 stories tall. So, you only need 1 basic elevator per buiding. And if it breaks down, no big deal, walking up 6 stories isn't that hard. And because there are basically no skysrcrapers, there are no wind tunnels, no major shadows over other buildings, pretty much everyone has a reasonable view, and you have tons of room for parks and plazas. And you can walk or cycle to most destinations because nothing is really that far away. Even out in the suburbs Danish houses didn't take up much space, and there were plenty of apartment buildings and units that had nice gardens, nice designs, but that didn't take up a lot of space. And there were open green spaces everywhere. If Aussie cities and suburbs were like that it would be awesome.

[@sarcasmo57]

I used to live in a 33 story building (does that count?) . I met a lot of friends on different floors, every Friday we had "lobby parties" and would invite everyone coming and going through the lobby. It was great to be able to visit people or meet up before going out just by hopping in the elevator. Within the building there were restaurants, offices, hotel rooms, a massage place, etc.... It took up a tiny land footprint because is was closely surrounded by other tall buildings. My house was far from luxurious it was a 50 square meter studio apartment on the top floor. So while what you said is often true, it simply doesn't have to be. China, Hubei, Wuhan, Wuchang, Zhong Nan Lu. 武昌独立！

[@evannibbe9375]

Makes perfect sense. The big thing in the U.S. is the far worse use of space with areas zoned for single family homes only with massive amounts of space exclusively for cars

[@sergeikorolev922]

武昌独立？又是一个有病的人

[@ecstacy2921]

There you have the chinese advertisement. idk what these govt funded cyber officials are trying to do? Writing praise comments about china won't make people come to your country lmaooo

[@sarcasmo57]

@@ecstacy2921 I got my 50c. But if you read the bottom you would know I couldn't possibly be Chinese.

[@DieFlabbergast]

@@sergeikorolev922 这是一个笑话。

[@QuantumBraced]

"Living on the 50th floor makes it really difficult to socialize with people". No it doesn't. You're a 2-minute elevator ride from the street which is probably in the middle of a busy city. What makes it difficult to socialize is living in a suburban home on a street with no sidewalks and being car-dependent.

[@markwuahlbuargg4780]

Both of those are less than ideal. What we need is medium density housing.

[@Larez121]

@@markwuahlbuargg4780 Yup! Also to the OP it's not a two minutes ride to the ground floor, unless you're in the bottom floors. I avoided specifying a floor number. It's arbitrary depending on the elevator technology, busy hours, etc. And what suburban neighborhood has no sidewalks?

[@Cbd_7ohm]

Being that high gives me anxiety.

[@DiogenesOfCa]

Suicide is the leading cause of death for men aged 20-44 in Japan.

[@rbvfeehfbudenrj]

@@Larez121 Have you ever been in an elevator? There fast. Even old buildings like my grandparents house have fast elevators that take like 30 seconds to get from bottom to top, and they are old elevators. Imagine what a modern fast elevator can do.

[@joshlikescola]

I agree/disagree? I think if designed properly, skyscrapers can be a pretty efficient way of making some space for offices/residents and the like. Skyscrapers in New York would be a good example of this, space is limited and height is the only way to add more stock. Now, that said, a 50 storey skyscraper next to a parking lot would be more efficient as 2x25 storey buildings. Skyscrapers are too expensive to be a viable solution for affordable housing. Clusters of single use buildings can create neighbourhoods that are empty and imposing outside of office hours. But, skyscrapers can help to create a sense of "place", a landmark, or even an attraction for people to visit and view the city from! Think of the Empire State, the Willis Tower and to an extent, the Burj Khalifa. The two former ones are quite well integrated into their neighbourhoods. When you are alongside the Empire State, if you don't look up, it appears like any other Manhattan building front, besides some particularly nice frontage. Skyscrapers are great when combined with good planning, are built in a neighbourhood with balanced uses and generally respect their surroundings, even if they are a departure from the usual architecture of the area. But I don't think we should fetishise them as urbanists, or see them as a perfect solution, but I also don't think they should be entirely disregarded.

[@AlphaGarg]

Where would you put the building residents' cars in that scenario? We can't just say "well, if we make the skyscraper shorter, and put copies where parking lots exist, we will fix the issue" and ignore the fact that people do and will own cars regardless of what you do, short of making public transport good enough to eliminate the need (which is incredibly silly to suggest), or making tons and tons of bike lanes so that using a bicycle (motorised or not) is actually doable and not as dangerous.

[@fran13r]

TL;DR: They look pretty tho, don't take em away from me.

[@DrewLSsix]

You are not taking into account the surface area those buildings take up though. Just like the Burgh NY sky scraper plots are far larger than the buildings them selves and in most cases an array of low rises on the same plot will offer more space for less cost.

[@supergamergrill7734]

@@AlphaGarg Hey getting rid of cars or reducing a need is vital since road congestion in the USA is too much for cities and roads. Their is just too many cars and we need to build better transport to get rid of most

[@joshlikescola]

@@fran13r Low key lol, I mean they have a place 😂 For luxury housing, I'd rather em be in skyscrapers than a fucking mcmansion

[@mickanvonfootscraymarket5520]

My city has around 100 skyscrapers, and the skyline at night is stunning. It is an awesome sight to see, all those lights on the horizon soaring into the sky.

[@TheYolo20]

Wow thats a perspective i never had. Next time the homeless man can go to sleep with a beautiful skyline of tall glass blocks

[@mickanvonfootscraymarket5520]

@@TheYolo20 you realise every city has homelessness right? not just cities with plenty of skyscrapers. My city has a social housing scheme, where they are housing at risk people in new high-rise developments, and they are given care paid by federal monies. How do I know? because I've helped roll out the scheme. Your comment isn't funny or original, you just sound like a moron.

[@mickanvonfootscraymarket5520]

@@TheYolo20 I would love to hear your next comeback

[@AH-mj1rd]

Those landscapers of 10stories are dirt cheap to build too, things get expensive only after 14stories. With the comparison to burj Khalifa, those short building world be 20 times cheaper to build too

[@grisflyt]

Also wood. I believe you can build 10 stories with wood. Wood is much better than steel and concrete and much cheaper. We can build great buildings cheaply, or crappy building expensively. i have never even been in those new wood buildings, but people living there say they are the best.

[@AH-mj1rd]

@@grisflyt wood can catch fire, but also normally they are built upto 3-4 storeys, that's what I have seen as common. Very uncommon to see 10floor wood building. Presumably they also get expensive when you build them higher

[@doom1894]

@@AH-mj1rd 🤨🤨 you do theirs now fire proof wood lmfaoo And I would rather see a 10 stories high wood building rather a ugly ass concrete block with widows

[@AH-mj1rd]

@@doom1894 fire proof to some degree and time. But if it exceeds that it will combust like crazy.

[@kushal4956]

as long as it's private money, does it really matter?

[@TheGotoGeek]

You forgot the primary advantage of skyscrapers: overpriced condos that are used for money laundering!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Hey, you gotta show growth at the end of the year!

[@petralizzy7383]

now you're thinking like a toronto real estate developer!

[@bokhans]

Did I hear trump here and Russian and money laundering and skyscraper.

[@anindrapratama]

i guess that’s why property fairs are very popular here in SE Asia

[@ozymandias8523]

Thats a very expensive and extremely long way for money laundering, I would prefer to sell bananas ducktaped to a wall in a museum

[@lazyidiotofthemonth]

Your theory of skyscrapers preventing communities from forming is baseless, I have live in residential towers in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Atlanta, and I knew my neighbors much better in those buildings than when I moved into my single family dwelling.

[@mrnogot4251]

Yeah I felt like that was some arm chair sociology.

[@christophergazze5036]

I thought it was interesting at the end where it was suggested many people can work from home rather than the office. Doesn't this discourage social interactions with others outside of your own home?

[@wizirbyman]

i'd really like if he posted sources to his claims... because skyscrapers or high rise apartments are actually better per capita for the environment in terms of pollution lol take for example hong kong - though they do have pollution, per capita it's not as bad as people who live in the suburbs in america since there is much more public transit and things are closer to each other

[@BlitzsieLDiscoLSnow]

@@wizirbyman That's because you're comparing two extremes which are both equally shit. NotJustBikes talks about the problem in his video on "the missing middle", a type of building that is better for community-building than both skyscrapers and single-family homes, while still being affordable and able to meet different standards for people in different stages of life. This type of "missing middle" housing is extremely popular in the Netherlands, and it usually consists of apartment buildings of just 4 stories high, with a communal garden and playgrounds all around the neighbourhood. Here's the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXSylYSpj8Zka9E

[@alethearia]

I used to live in a cool high rise dorm where every 3 floors there was a communal space that you could access via ramps / stairs / elevators. I liked it. We could do massive movie nights and study groups. But high rise complexes aren't built like dorms...

[@aviadlampert5956]

I am disappointed about this video. 1. Skyscrapers save area (if you build them close to each other, unlike the tower you have shown) and reduces the need for cars. Both things are environmentally friendly. 2. The cost of housing in big cities is mostly due to the cost of the land it sits on. More stories is using the same expensive land multiple times thus lowering the cost of housing. 3. Most high buildings have elevators. 4. As I have mentioned before, they should be built closer to each other and usually they are.

[@iv0447]

I have wanted to be an Architect since I was a child, designing little buildings out of Leggo. When I had a chance to return to university to study Architecture, I visited the faculty open house to see the kinds of "inspirational" projects the graduate students were putting out. It was pretty much all Modern Skyscrapers, glass and steel, with a 5-story underground parking garage and some attempts to make them seem "Green", like a rooftop water-capturing system and some decorative plants. I came out utterly uninspired, because I want to design beautiful, small, human-scale buildings that integrate with nature (eg. passive house, net zero, earthships, etc). It was pretty apparent this was not the direction Architecture school was aiming for. I am sure many Architects are inspired by greats like Frank Lloyd Wright, and want to make buildings that are beautiful, functional and livable. I am not big for "commy-blocks" either. I think we can do a lot better!

[@LilliHerveau]

I would love to see more people like you in charge

[@javierpacheco8234]

My friend you are not the only one who thinks this way, i believe that beuaty of the past and our history is erased becuase of modernism which has led to architecture to look similar everywhere, that can be made anywhere which is modern architecture.

[@kevinrocha4527]

Don't let that discourage you! Do you what you need to get the degree and stick to your own ideas and designs. There are places that have a demand for smaller buildings and homes with nature integrated in them. For example Japan and a few other countries that have "Tiny Houses" trending as well as office buildings designed around a environmentally friendly nature theme. Look up landscape architects Ishii Hideyuki and Noda Akiko!

[@EldeNice]

I am really curious to see what "human-scale buildings that integrate with nature" looks like in your mind? Do you have links to examples? Because all I can find for green housing is either container shitholes, 3D printed concrete wavy builds or houses made from tires packed with dirt.

[@kevinrocha4527]

​@@EldeNice Search "When Trees Meet Buildings" and that video is basically what I'm referring to when it comes to large scale buildings, what they all basically have in common is plants running down one side, some floors dedicated to being garden courtyards, and plants on the roof too

[@tealmer3528]

As someone who has lived in a skyscraper, you are right about environment impact. However, your philosophy about cost is flawed. Not all housing needs to be affordable. Skyscrapers are typically built in downtown areas. These are wealthy areas. Build apartments for the people that live there. Nobody is proposing building a privately funded skyscraper out in a poor neighborhood, that would be ridiculous. Those areas get mid-rises at the tallest. As for alienation, skyscrapers have something called an elevator. A properly built skyscraper will have enough elevators that it will rarely take you more than 5 minutes to get from the front door of your apartment to the front door of the building. As for logistics, you either put that stuff in the same building or in a mid-rise or high-rise next door. It's really not that complicated. The main issue with logistics is when people want to drive to the skyscraper. That's stupid. Skyscrapers shouldn't be built in car-dependent areas. They should be built in dense, wealthy areas of cities where you don't need a car. For instance, the skyscrapers in Houston, Texas are dumb. However, the skyscrapers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are not, as the people that live them generally either don't own a car or have a single car that they rarely use. The same goes for commercial skyscrapers, the people that drive to work in them have to pay a huge price for the limited parking supply in garages (this is a good thing). Therefore, since Philadelphia has an excellent commuter rail network, the ones that live outside the city drive to the commuter rail, park there, and take the train in. Many of the workers there also live in the city, and get to work by walking, biking, taking the subway, or taking the trolley. However, in Houston, people near universally drive to the skyscrapers. This is a huge issue. Also, your example of the Burj khalifa was an extreme one. That was a dumb project. It has a giant park around it. That's dumb. Skyscrapers shod oh be built densely, and on a gradual slope from low-rise buildings, like in Philadelphia.

[@ligametis]

those are already premium locations and if skyscrapers aren't build they become pure highest level luxury with only low-rise.

[@tealmer3528]

@@ligametis That wasn't a premium location but it was still above-average. Skyscrapers don't make sense to house most people in.

[@GeloKuhsang]

I even disagree that Burj Khalifa is a dumb project. One argument in favor of skyscrapers that wasn’t mentioned is that they a sign of prestige. Large beautiful tall buildings communicate to the world that your city and country possesses wealth, influence, capital and puts it on a map helping you attract investment, businesses, tourism etc. While Arab sheikhs of UAE did spent shitload of money on Dubai look at how well that paid off for them that Dubai is now one of the global business centers of the world and an absolutely gorgeous futuristic city. There is a reason why everyone from New York to London to Moscow to Shanghai want to build them in their downtowns. Show me a single instance when commieblocks produced such indirect economic benefits

[@ajomagurd]

@@GeloKuhsang fuck prestige. Giving people houses is better than prestige country dick measureing. We shouldnt ravage the planet and waste space just for prestige.

[@abel___]

Agreed! The so called “yuppie fish tanks” are good for cities

[@s577151]

I just moved from a 40 story tower and it was great, it was part of 4 towers that connected at the bottom and first 2 floors had so many amenities, a 25m pool 2 gyms movie room game room... Etc. it was really fun to invite people over. And at the bottom of the building there were usual business hair, dentist,dry cleaners, coffee shop, 3 restorants, and a 3 fast food places.

[@s577151]

It also had a daycare and cooled it self by pumping water from the lake beside it

[@charlespattison8138]

I usually really enjoy Adam’s videos but wow this was really biased ; Europeans don’t like skyscrapers I guess! (I’m European btw) I live in a wonderful residential block in Singapore which is 42 storeys tall and I love it. It takes 2 minutes to go up and down the building (15mins are you joking????) it’s extremely social as the condominium has common areas such as a swimming pool to meet your neighbours (of which I know many). The high density of inhabitants here make public transport extremely important so connectivity is fantastic. The only issue I have with it really is the lack of double window glazing which would have made it more environmentally friendly but that’s just a poor design, not a sign of what “could” be done. This video is not at all reflective of what residential skyscrapers are like AT ALL

[@royisdabest]

not everywhere is like singapore though

[@charlespattison8138]

@@royisdabest yeah agreed but I would argue that large cities are effectively land constrained like Singapore unless you want massive sprawling cities where everyone must have a car with traffic and pollution that comes with that.

[@kitbarrows3874]

@@charlespattison8138 agreed. Skyscrapers definitely arent my thing but there was alot misrepresented in this video. I do not believe that Skyscrapers are all just vanity projects.

[@KrzysiuNet]

Yeah, my 11 floor build of flats was very unsocial, until... I started to talk to people and socialize. Especially elevators force you to spend time with people and if one wants, that's a great start to get new friends! Small talk, one minute, then again, then you talk longer, start meeting etc. If you want to socialize, you'd do it regardless how tall building is. And if you don't want it, you simply won't socialize, no matter the housing. In fact most closed-area neighborhoods in Europe, which are by design anti-social, are low buildings.

[@forzer456]

I’m from SG too and I see both sides but condominiums are a bit different to skyscrapers in the city. In the heart of a city you would have towers next to each other giving no true outside space unless ur next to a park. Though SG is limited by land a lot of condominium r outside the cbd and hv the luxury to hv a pool that takes up quite a considerable amount of space to attract ppl to stay there.

[@TowerHunter]

I live on the third floor of a commie block and I've never even seen my neighbours. And I like it that way.

[@GregInTokyo]

“People will just stay in their apartments” says the video whilst showing a hotel on the left and Tokyo City Hall on the right, both close to one of the most vibrant areas of Tokyo. The use of Tokyo stock footage doesn’t really work for the reasons others have stated. There just isn’t the land available and the so-called “tower mansions” are being built to give more people reasonable living space without being a 2-hour commute to work.

[@lzh4950]

We could solve that problem by building bridges connecting, say, the 40th floors of neighbouring skyscrapers. Wait, that's does indeed exist between the Petronas Twin Towers

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

@@lzh4950 I've heard they've experimented with that on a much larger scale in Minneapolis, where it also has the advantage of keeping people out of the harsh Minnesota winters.

[@effexon]

Tokyo area is surprisingly wide... that famous crossing is small part of it.

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

@@effexon Yes and most of it is single-family homes.

[@effexon]

@@alexanderfretheim5720 uhh... that suggests every city is clone of each other.... percentages of those families could be exact to decimals.. I had stereotype that japanese families this would be less so than other places

[@99999bomb]

“Houses shouldn’t go higher than 10 storeys, cities have enough space” Micro states, Hong Kong and Macau:

[@gamingchamp6728]

And Singapore. “It’s either skyscrapers or we invade Malaysia”

[@rezandrarizkyirianto-1933]

Reminds me of Hengsha in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The city is located in a limited area so they just build a new city on top of the old one to save space

[@Itsshaunbewarned]

and mumbai

[@ankanmaiti9864]

@@Itsshaunbewarned Surprisingly it has FSI limits, driving the rents higher than more than half of working people even to afford.

[@luck3949]

The whole video is about why Rolls Royce isn't a good economy class car.

[@KisDre]

Maybe we shouldn't have that much Rolls Royce than? But jokes aside, i see your point, but if i looking at some New York photos or for some other area like this, not every skyscraper is that 'unique'.

[@Zero.X]

if a Merc S class can compete whit a RR so why should i buy one? for example the Merc Maybach s680 S Class is like a RR Ghost, just Cheaper at the Raw price

[@luck3949]

@@Zero.X Because everybody knows that Merc is cheaper, and you don't want others to think you're cheap. When people buy RR they do it not for comfort, but to show others that they have insane amounts of money. Same reason why people wear large diamonds, or necklace with 2 kilograms of gold, or put 100 dollar bills on fire with a lighter. It's not for comfort, it's to show off that you are so wealthy, that you can waste money and you don't even care about any losses.

[@ozymandias8523]

@@luck3949 maybe just because you like it? Like people whom buy skins in videogames, they are only skins, don’t give any advantage but they like how it looks, that’s it.

[@dhruv9744]

This is the perfect summary for this video 😂

[@MrLOLSager]

15 minutes to get down?😂 they usually come with elevators

[@nathalie_desrosiers]

On busy day with the added waiting time, it's pretty possible. When you go down and the elevator stop almost at every floor, the time seems to move slower.

[@jon_nomad]

Apparently he prefer to drive 15 minutes to the nearest town to get a pack of cigarettes instead of walking down from an apartment. There goes the planet.

[@Jinkypigs]

@@nathalie_desrosiers still not 15 mins dude

[@dankschang]

Land cost in City center ain't cheap, perhaps you need to investigate that perspectives too. Most Asian city have high level of population density.

[@darioad9313]

That’s a good reason

[@FabioTheGreat]

I guess he didn’t look into Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzen. He mainly focused on European cities, American cities, and Dubai.

[@ser6Ijvolk]

If you consider how many of the people living there are office workers who can as well work from some village in the country through the internet, you can understand how much space there is wasted on office buildings and how it's much more overcrowded than it needs to be. Huge skyscraper cities are the past, not the future.

[@ozymandias8523]

Yeah he seems that didn’t count the most important reason, too little space in a high density city drives the price of land up.

[@banchnotok]

But most of them don't have this densitiy vertically

[@denuncimesmo2568]

I work with real estate, and unfortunately everything you said is true, and there is still the problem of lack of light, lack of ventilation, reverberation from noise pollution, and concentration of carbon dioxide due to building walls, constant destruction of infrastructure structure of the streets because of the excess weight of the concrete trucks, after all, hell never ends. they could do what they did in Derinkuyu a city below ground. but modern underground buildings can be expensive but they would certainly be a good form of protection against natural catastrophe. and there would be a lot of area left for squares and leisure, trees drastically increasing the quality of life of people who live not only in the building but in the city.

[@warcriminal4183]

I don’t know of any skyscraper that has a 15 minute long one way elevator.. but okay. You also likely have lounges, a gym and maybe a pool if it’s a luxury skyscraper

[@MrPoopiesoup]

Waiting for the elevator to arrive as well as waiting inside it does add up especially on busy days when a lot of people are using them. I guess adding more elevators will solve this but I'm not sure what it would cost. I don't mind the alienation though, I've always been more of an introvert. What I do mind is the frequency of problems such as plumbing and air conditioning. Although i suppose that's a matter of design, which is closely related to cost.

[@gbizzotto]

go to rio de janeiro take the _line_ to a lift in any tall building go, say, half way up. enjoy the free tour of every other storey get out and call the lift again. wait. now get another free visit to every other floor on your way down

[@nonec384]

@@gbizzotto brazil doesnt have sky scrapers tho

[@gbizzotto]

@@nonec384 You're right. Only vertical favelas

[@in5linesofcodeorless552]

@@MrPoopiesoup wouldn't adding more elevators just have the same problems of adding more lanes on roads????

[@iamwritingrightnow8217]

I have following 2 things to critizise: 1. Comparing the Burj Khalifa to the „Village house“ is a strawman imo. The Burj Khalifa was built for to house the top 1% while the other seems to be build for working class citizens. So naturally you‘re going to have a lot of space „wasted“ cause it needs to look prestigious. You should‘ve picked a better example. 2. Isn‘t the „village house“ going to create similar logistical problems as a skyscraper? If you condens an entire village to one block you‘re naturally going to create a logistics nightmare.

[@alecward895]

The *entire* point of a skyscraper is to look prestigious. That's why it's important to recognize that they are not a solution to urban growth. Density itself is actually very efficient in terms of cost, energy use, basic service provision, and convenience for residents. But skyscrapers eat away at those efficiencies - they are far more expensive to build and maintain, they require more energy to heat and cool, they require more extensive engineering to provide even basic services like plumbing, and tend not to foster mixed-use commercial activity at the street level.

[@hrithikmta491]

I beg to differ with the alienation part, it is generally a lack of a good initiation in the highrise building, I live in the 15th floor of a pretty big apartment which is kind off affordable and we have clubs and meets, joint events, barbeque days within the apartment which a lot of people attend !

[@GAGONMYCOREY]

ok do you think this is normal. he's talking aggregate

[@TROPtastic]

@@GAGONMYCOREY he's talking about a stereotype of skyscrapers, not any sort of fact-based aggregate. Plenty of real life high-rises are like that, and it completely comes down to the building developer. Mid-rise buildings can be shitty oppressive garbage too: just see the buildings he compared the Burj Khalifa to.

[@krombopulos_michael]

@@GAGONMYCOREY but even if its not currently the norm there is no reason it can't be if skyscrapers are designed with that in mind and people are given adequate communal spaces.

[@MrDude826]

It's alienating when not built regarding a neighborhood.

[@krzysztofobodzinski2529]

@@TROPtastic man, when I saw that comparison to commie blocks I instantly knew he has no idea what he’s talking about. I live in a post communism country and I never feel as much alienation, hostility and oppression as when I go visit some of my poorer family or whatever who still live in those old communist blocks. They’re so ugly and uninspiring, there’s no amenities at all. Just “living” area, sometimes a shitty park with barely any grass in it and a dilapidated playground for kids You gotta have some amenities and other nice things, otherwise it just gives birth to so much petty crime, social pathology, low living standards and you can instantly tell when someone lives in a place like that because that changes you

[@Maxime_K-G]

In my experience #3 is the opposite. Residential towers are some of the best places to know your neighbours due to shared amenities and a feeling of solidarity. Also, in less dense spread out places finding people with the same interests close to you is harder due to there being less interesting places to go and less people overall.

[@booksteer7057]

There was a brilliant book that came out in the early 70's called "Compact City: A Plan For A Liveable Urban Environment" that proposed a completely planned city that could accommodate a huge number of people in a relatively small space, but no point would ever take more than five minutes to reach via public transit. The city would be round, like a cake, and only 10-12 story's tall. The problem is that only the state could build such an expensive structure, and nobody wants to live in an anthill. :-/

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

To some extent, you're describing 1920's London. It's not terrible, but it is overrated. Personally I think most of the "problems with skyscrapers" are really just problems with the International Style. The older skyscrapers in Manhattan and Seattle from before the I.S. are BEAUTIFUL, with fine white marble, gargoyles, elegant small windows, fountains, pinnacles, proud lettering and sculpture work, mantles with flourishes, and dreamy masonry work, and they also don't waste nearly as much heat or electricity. In the 1970's though, you had this group of architects who made extremely sophistic arguments about Form following Function and the cost of ornamentation that are really complete bunk, and although they didn't ACTUALLY save money, they convinced the businesses that hired them that they did.

[@Aureilius2112]

It doesn’t take 15 min to get from the 50th floor to the first floor! Lol. Elevators aren’t that slow. The only time I had issues is when two of my building elevators were down for maintenance

[@draggin]

@@rami8896 I agree with you. His entire channel feels like a rant tbh.

[@psychout3481]

​@@draggin It doesn't feels like ranting. He literally rants on every single video. His argument is either commie = bad or anything other than a suburb in a European village = bad

[@dhruv9744]

Modern elevators have high speed mechanism m8 , they aren't moving at 10 inches per second.

[@17thsavior]

This video seems to boil down more to cultural proclivities than practicalities. Lot of cities with taller buildings are extremely space constrained. Edit: in a list of the densest cities in the world with over a five hundred thousand people (I'm being generous and not holding the bar to a million which would exclude most of the 'well planned cities' this channel loves to make comparison to), a European city doesn't figure in the top 50. Skyscrapers are inefficient, but saying tall buildings are unnecessary is just a bad take. Pay a visit to any coastal Asian city that is geographically bounded and unable to expand.

[@DarkNightLight68]

@albert einstien Such as?

[@banana9056]

@@DarkNightLight68 such as joe

[@gaelzenati5190]

@albert einstien isn’t a skyscraper just “tall infrastructure”, with or without the efficiency

[@iJarib]

Which cities?

[@timg2727]

@albert einstien please elaborate on what kinds of non-skyscraper "tall infrastructure" you're envisioning which also consist primarily of usable space.

[@daciogutierrez4132]

There is also the small matter of security: skyscrapers are difficult to evacuate in case of emergency. And as we have recent historic examples, are a target for attacks.

[@divinehatred6021]

Yes, 19th century beautiful skyscrapers were attacked,exploded, burned and destroyed by evil people from USA because they were making them feel inferior to something they could never build.

[@SofaSpy]

His point on concentrated Infrastructure is wrong. The higher the density, the cheaper it is to build schools, roads, transit etc. Because you have more tax payers and infrastructure users in a smaller area. 10k tax payers to build a 1 mile road compared to 100 tax payers to build the same 1 mile road (which cost the exact same). Infrastructure has a base line cost and it cost is parabolic afterwards so the more people you have in terms of density, the cheaper infrastructure will be.

[@SaadForGaming7]

You're kinda wrong. Because instead of building an elementary school for example for 1000people. You need to build an elementary school for 10000people, and even if the cost is theoretically cheaper because of tax payers (it's not because of the added capacity). Traffic will be a nightmare unless good infrastructure was made which is expensive.

[@SofaSpy]

@@SaadForGaming7 see how you automatically said traffic will be a nightmare. That is the brainwashed ideology that alot of Americans have. Public transportation is cheaper to build and holds more capacity than cars. Tokyo, London, and every major world city operates on public transit. It's only America were we heavily rely on cars. Car infrastructure is very expensive and has low transit capacity hence the traffic. 4.3 million people ride the NYC subway per day. Imagine 4.3 million cars on NYC street or building infrastructure for 4.3 million more cars. Regardless of how much Americans complain, public transit will always out perform cars and highways by magnitudes. Pound for pound public transit is extremely cheap and has an exponential higher capacity

[@javierpacheco8234]

@@SofaSpy yes but a car does bring you to places that where trains don't have stations too and a car does travel faster to go to other far away places. But if United States had a high speed rail and more stations to towns and cities then it would definently make transportation so much better.

[@SaadForGaming7]

@@SofaSpy my guy I hate cars lol and I am not an American... But we're talking about urban areas that have many spaces, use cars as a motor of transportation, and build skyscrapers (like USA and UAE). Japan on the other end can build skyscrapers and it's beneficial because they don't have space and they got good public transport. idk why you bring America and brainwashing into the mix but explain to me. Are you okay with Dubai urban planning? why Europe doesn't have a lot of skyscrapers even tho they got good public transportation/high density? Did you watch the video when the guy literally said Japan is an exception because they got no space?

[@yanDeriction]

@@SaadForGaming7 Nah. More density = more economies of scale/ agglomeration.

[@geraldbaria]

Because aesthetics and beauty matters, and density in coastal areas matter, they make sense for urban areas. Build the livable space on a small plot, build a beautiful garden around it instead of using the entire plot for an ugly concrete village. And the view matters. That’s why the taller the floor the more expensive the space gets. Its one of those human exercises that needs to exists because we are a species that appreciates beauty and most of the time requires efficiency. The 10 floor buildings growing horizontally sure have its place on very flat countries with lots of rivers, but for most that has only coastal areas and mountains, skyscrapers are a great way to maximize living space. And they’re cool.

[@shastealyomeal]

So True!

[@krisztianpovazson4535]

Glass-and-steel aquariums have neither aesthetics nor beauty. Your point is?

[@razvansfirlogea3134]

"sKysCraPERs aRe cOoL!", said soyjack 324141. You actually had good points but then ruined your whole take by sounding like a teenager. Skyscrapers are a great way to maximize living space, by making you feel boxed in and trapped if you're not living on the most upper floors or when you're at ground level. Isn't it cool to only see 10% of the sky at any given moment? Isn't it cool to see the sun for 2 hours a day at noon? Such cool!

[@shastealyomeal]

@@razvansfirlogea3134 I'm Soi You're Jak

[@retaraemes7863]

I find most of your videos very insightful, but this one misses the point. You have the obsession with the Burj Khalifa, but most skyscrapers are more efficient and affordable. You don't need to go 828m, but if you want to reduce car ownership (good), then building vertically (instead of horizontally - spreading things out) is one of the main ways of doing it

[@oasntet]

99.9% of cities have tons of room to build vertically without building skyscrapers.

[@retaraemes7863]

@@oasntet also, 99.9% of big cities have highly trafficked and dense nodes (both for economic and connectivity reasons) where skyscrapers do actually help accommodating needs

[@ff-qf1th]

If you want to reduce car ownership, building things more close together doesn't really tackle the problem properly. People use cars not really because of the need to travel longer distances but more because of the way american urban design is so car-centric. A good way to tackle car ownership is creating cycling routes that are shorter than car routes. They do this in amsterdam, and _it even makes the car routes faster,_ because more people are cycling, which leads to less traffic. If you orient urban design around cyclists, you decrease car ownership, and, again, _you make a better driving experience,_ because the people who do use cars don't have to deal with as much traffic. See: The Best Country in the World for Drivers, by Not Just Bikes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmm1g3hop6mqas0

[@retaraemes7863]

@@ff-qf1th Hey, thanks for the reply. I do agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not experienced in American urban design as I lived mostly around Europe and Asia, but having things more closed together does actually help because urban sprawl has been found to increase car ownership and use across the globe. Cycling is a good option for certain trips, but not an optimal transport mode for others. MaaS would be a good solution, but it is difficult to implement properly

[@Axel_Andersen]

@@ff-qf1th I'm fine with building better and shorter cycle routes. However, as an old man I well remember what family life with three kids was like. Without car it would have be such a nightmare. Commuting to the other side of the city with public transport with two or three exchanges from bus to metro to bus would have taken an hour each way. Day care demanded that the child spent less than 9 hours there. Wife working on the other end of the city. Not to mention children's hobbies and weekend on the country. Relocating or switching jobs would have meant much lower standard of living. So we had two cars and depended on them and I don't think any amount of town planning would have changed this for us and will not change it for many people. When you are married with children it is not so easy to set up your life for no-car scenario. At very least it requires many life style changes that many are not willing to make. And no amount of town planning can help with that. To me it seems that it is often single (or DINKs) that see life and world as one wonder full Amsterdam with bike lines and coffee shops. But maybe I'm just cynical grumpy old man. :)

[@echomjp]

It makes zero sense to build even a single "skyscraper" until you have made every single building in an area 5-10 stories tall in a given area at least.

[@sloweny2086]

As a Hungarian I cant image what's feel like living beyond the skyscrapers. (We have not these buildings, we have medieval and 19th centuries houses, flats)

[@riva2003]

I can testify for you. I was in Budapest last month. Lived in such an old building. Had the pleasure to take some old elevators that I only saw in old movies. A very beautiful city though.

[@riva2003]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 Is that so? I talked to some Hungarians they told me their parents generation kinda miss the soviet era. Things really went down since the early 90s. Inflation surged, real wage plummeted, a lot of people deep in debt.

[@riva2003]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 Well to me the same apply to the capitalism system as well. I see little difference between the two. Neither is human.

[@womenhavehivemind9043]

Lol that's very boring country then

[@tincanmaniac1931]

Urban density is the saving grace. I'd much rather walk around Boston than I would Dallas.

[@KWifler]

Could you expand upon that thought for those of us who are introverts and thus prefer to walk alone?

[@soap5547]

@@KWifler if you are an introvert you will prefer high density cities, you'll adapt to that really quickly because no where else do people not give the slightest fuck about you than in those places. You're good, also your the minority and cities are not build to appease individuals but larger groups of people so it doesn't really matter if you prefer to walk alone or not

[@lynksis12]

@@soap5547 agreed. I grew up in a city of 3 million people and enjoyed the anonymity in the density. Now I live in a town of 25,000 people where everyone knows each other and know something, somehow about you. It's eerie as an introvert

[@kevinbutler1114]

I listen to the Communist Manifesto and start getting recommended this guy's videos. I wonder what recommendations I'll get if I start listening to Ayn Rand?

[@kevinbutler1114]

@@luxinvictus9018 If you saw my room, you would agree that such counsel is sorely needed in my life.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Probably videos about oncology.

[@grahamparker538]

the canadian band Rush

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

Probably a bunch of 80's rock music.

[@zetazimmer4769]

A PragerU video about how postmodern neomarxists are attacking skyscrapers

[@OMNI-Infinity]

How many times do you want to roast Dubai? Yes.

[@lameowizard]

As someone living on the 44th floor in Singapore with a marvelous panoramic view of the city, I agree. The view gets old really fast. However, we really don't have a choice but to build higher in land-scarce Singapore. I find it amusing you used Oasia as an example of an environmentally friendly skyscraper. I see it right in front of me every morning and it's such an eyesore.

[@skc1003]

I pity Singaporeans

[@KWifler]

Really only the governing groups of any nation are stuck within its borders, unless the people are slaves or cattle. There's no reason to create a problem where it doesn't have to exist.

[@haikaloronsentnel138]

INVADES MALAYS!A AND GETS M0RE LAND, AFTER THAT'S S!NGAP0RE CAN MAKE SUE 0F PEACE W!TH MALAYSIA AFTER HALF 0F MALAYA C0MES INT0 S!NGAP0RE C0NTR0LS!!!

[@Jinkypigs]

Dude view gets old even faster on a 3 story block facing the windows of your neighbours.... even if you are facing a glorious seaside.... so irrelevant either way...

[@Jinkypigs]

@@skc1003 really? We are enjoying ourselves, so save the pity for yourselves instead

[@unknownPLfan]

The Burj Khalifa is just an extreme example of a skyscraper built for vanity as opposed to density, though it is reminiscent of how a lot of American cities are sprawling suburbs with tiny skyscraper CBDs with way too many parking lots - whereas you could fit way more people in a smaller area by getting rid of the suburbs and filling out the parking lots and inner suburban zones with 6-10 storey buildings along dense streetscapes reminiscent of Berlin or something. Density should be the thing to promote in a city above all else. A skyscraper may make sense in Manhattan, Brooklyn, or Hong Kong though. So this is just another video that correctly points out that urban planning peaked in the late 19th to early 20th century and just has been in a steady decline since then.

[@ro-ce8vg]

point 4 was “there will be a lot of people so you will need a lot of things like schools in the area” spreading people out just means you need more, smaller schools, and more public transportation. not a good point . and if you remove parking lots to build residential areas, you would need a LOT more public transport infrastructure. the entirety of a skyscraper can be served by 1 bus stop and rail line

[@hunderslash]

I was wondering what your take would be when I saw this. “Skyscrapers are efficient housing right?” medium floor count buildings spread out horizontally makes a lot of more sense, in a world of endless suburb it can be hard to initially see how skyscrapers are a worse idea when making the comparison of suburb to skyscraper.

[@matthiasdarrington3271]

In big banks' eyes these are all positive points.

[@billolsen4360]

The more alienated we are from our neighbors, the more us salaried people will work extra hours.

[@argonhammer9352]

Are you right wing?

[@billolsen4360]

@@argonhammer9352 No, strictly in the middle, where the most completely logical and most compassionate people are.

[@matheusaragao7640]

@@billolsen4360 I don't know man, that seems like a pretty left-wing statement.

[@billolsen4360]

@@matheusaragao7640 I've voted republican for over 2 decades if that helps. As I see it a conservative republican outlook makes the most sense, lets industry grow and creates the most jobs and the most tax revenue so our government doesn't have to keep borrowing. I don't like the big business vibe these days and most big business managers don't have a conservative outlook, they're in it to become huge monopolies like Google or the big league banks so that they are granted control our lives and that tends to be more on the liberal side. Almost every billionaire is a democrat. Under mostly, not all, democrat congresses & state legislatures, we've seen usury laws eliminated, allowing big banks to become loan sharks. Some of the worst abuses of finance & worker rights permitted for Big Agriculture I saw when I was in business in California, and it was allowed under the continuing Democratic Party controlled state government. But, my party is controlled by "insiders" as well, just as much puppets of lobbyists as those on the other side of the aisle.

[@gabesz]

IMHO make an example of that concrete panel monster that called village house is not a good point. That is a concrete desert, and even with the renewed look, it was terrible. In summer it was hot, in winter it was cold, even after the modernization. That building and the 100% of the panel buildings in Hungary should never built. Nothing destroy the cityscape more than a building like this.

[@1q34w]

So your problem is the design?

[@CharlieHolmesT]

He didn't say they were optimal, he called them commie blocks. He just used it as a point of comparison to which the big boi lost.

[@gabesz]

@@CharlieHolmesT That building is a bad point of comparison. He could have found multiple better non skyscraper building from the same city.

[@gabesz]

@@1q34w Not the design, that building is a memento of communism with all of the design flaws. Made from concrete, no heat isolation, small terrible flat layouts inside, and terrible interior and exterior design. Also that building is exactly something what 100% support the "alienization" of the inhabitants. Bad example. Very bad. I'm from the same city, and had a few experiences with that and other similar buildings.

[@varkonyitibor4409]

Itt nem arról van szó hogy a panelház az jó a maga tervezési és kivitelezési minőségében hanem hogy a léptéke/ méretaránya sokkal jobban megfelel a város számára.

[@90enemies]

Remember when there was that one company who wanted to build a hotel that hangs from an asteroid? I think it was called the Analemma Tower. Wild

[@unknownPLfan]

That wasn't a serious proposal since there are so many engineering problems that are simply intractable - friction from the air, physical obstacles on earth, material strength, not sure if the particular orbit even works even if you could counteract air friction...

[@flexican5399]

I remember, would be cool tho

[@SiisKolkytEuroo]

@@unknownPLfan you're almost too kind to the "proposal", which was utterly ridiculous and incompatible with physics

[@Darduel]

Completely disagree with "alienation" part, this is the kind of arguments people use when they see someone's private property and call it "agressive space", elevators today are super fast and the office building at my work gets me to the 36th floor within a few seconds.. yeah obviously if we all live in private houses with gardens than we will see each other much more but thats not possible

[@sjwilkin]

This doesnt make sense when you think about how tight space is in London, NY, Tokyo, Hong Kong...

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

And also when you consider that every city block is NOT created equal.

[@mrlongschlong4370]

Oh you found the 0.1% he talked sbout

[@sjwilkin]

@@mrlongschlong4370 0.1% of what

[@alexanderfretheim5720]

@@mrlongschlong4370 I think you'd find a larger percentage of humanity than 0.1% lives in such places.

[@samhwwg]

@@mrlongschlong4370 These cities house much more people and drive the world economy like you wouldn’t believe kiddo. Him stating the “99%” is not only arbitrary, but just flat out wrong in this case.

[@LilliHerveau]

I think it would have been quite impactful to tell the difference in construction price between the burg khalifa and the 5 village complexes. (even estimates would have been great)

[@gorgit]

Shouldnt be too hard tofigure this out for yourself, like google'ing might just give you your answers

[@scritch9549]

Don't see how it's relevent, the burg khalifa is a building made as a status symbel, have art made from gold and the second largest choreographed founten in the world. The village complexes are made to maximize space as cheaply as possible...

[@michasokoowski6651]

@@scritch9549 That's why it's not mentioned in the video. But he did mention that building higher becomes more and more expensive quickly.

[@jaswik2023]

@@gorgit i guess ideas to improve the video aren't appreciated?, This was a poor video where it was filled with more opinion than fact supported statement

[@gorgit]

@@jaswik2023 Fair enough.

[@GMDRecords]

I still love skyscrapers, a great view never gets old for me. In Melbourne we lived on the 22nd floor for 2 years and I miss the view. The nearby parks were vibrant with small crowds of students, office workers etc. We also had a tram stop outside our apartment and it’s free all over the CBD. We now live in our own single story house and hardly anyone goes to the local park.

[@MrSmokinDragon]

you do know that the choice isn't binary between single-story or skyscraper, right?

[@GMDRecords]

@@MrSmokinDragon no, but the kind of view one may have between the two is, right?

[@Kefka.]

This, I know plenty of people who like where they live because of the view, or whatever else and guess what decades living there and they still love the view. I for the first time in my life moved to a 2nd floor apartment 2 years ago (always live ground floor). And still two years later I loved my slightly elevated view.

[@GMDRecords]

@@Kefka. I can imagine a city skyline or a view of a lake or ocean be quite nice in a slightly elevated home too 👍🏽

[@wolf1066]

"...open plan hellscapes (except for your boss's)" - ain't that the truth. Apparently, a quiet, isolated office increases your boss's productivity but is not necessary for worker productivity. Worker productivity is apparently best enhanced by how convenient it is for the boss to stand at one corner of the room and see if anyone looks like they're slacking off or, worse, actually enjoying their day.