# Is the high rise competition beneficial to the human race?



## Reverie (Nov 23, 2007)

mhays said:


> Wrong.
> 
> First, wikipedia is not an authorative source.
> 
> ...



OK I trust you.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

i dont know very much about either city so maybe someone can correct me but:

manhattan has a lot of commercial high rises. many ppl commute there from other less dense areas.

the cbd for paris is outside city limits, so people in paris commute out of teh city to go to la defense for work.

i don't know if this would effect pop density much but if manhattan was mostly residential high rises and NYC's cdb's were located in other place its pop density would be higher mebbe. just a thought


----------



## Reverie (Nov 23, 2007)

foadi said:


> i dont know very much about either city so maybe someone can correct me but:
> 
> manhattan has a lot of commercial high rises. many ppl commute there from other less dense areas.
> 
> ...


Yes it's an important fact. But globally when you see the skyline there is a lot of space between the buildings. I'm not sure that it could hosts 40,000/km² like the mid-rise part bordering Central Park.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

press.word said:


> Back in the 20th century many countries were at war and as a result there was a huge advancement in technology. During the race to the moon and thereafter, we also saw improvement in technology. Those this were beneficial to the advancement of the human race.
> 
> How is the high rise competition beneficial, other then the obvious, which is creating places to live. So what if we become much better at building really nice homes? Are we focusing our energy and resources in the area?


Depends on the height. Up to a certain height high rises can make sense. I think about South American cities in this regard, but also many Asian cities. The extremely high skyscrapers do not make much sense from an economic and functional perspective, but they get built for other reasons like representation or irrational reasons.

The worst thing that can happen is that money resources and energy get wasted. Thats definitely better than war, but I fear building such skyscrapers do little to prevent wars. 

Anyway, the luxury of extremely high skyscrapers is not that common anyway, At least in most cities, except eg Dubai.


----------



## centralcali19 (Jan 6, 2007)

building vertical means less sprawl, less areas covered with suburban homes, which means less pollution, so i guess its beneficial to the human race...common sense... lol but theres also the other side, competition is sometimes good, but some results can be negative.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

foadi said:


> i dont know very much about either city so maybe someone can correct me but:
> 
> manhattan has a lot of commercial high rises. many ppl commute there from other less dense areas.
> 
> ...


Paris' cbd is not just La Defense and its not even the main CBD.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Well, London's financial district is decentralizing with Canary Wharf being in zone 2.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Some cities are that occupied with building skyscrapers that they forget the rest of the infra-structure and quality of life aspect....


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

centralcali19 said:


> building vertical means less sprawl, less areas covered with suburban homes, which means less pollution, so i guess its beneficial to the human race...common sense... lol but theres also the other side, competition is sometimes good, but some results can be negative.


How that? First of all, in US style cities skyscrapers normally are not too often residential anyway and secondly do I doubt that skyscrapers are the perfect method to fight sprawl. To create urbanity, medium density and alternative concepts to mobility by car are already sufficient as basic ingredients. 

Btw, I think the argument that the real estates are so expensive therefore one has to build skyscrapers funny. At least in US cities the CBD often looks like two low height parking houses are standing around for one skyscraper (which has a parking house below itself as well). The CBD's look like huge car storages.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

Here in Indiana, dense(historically) means vast blocks of 2-4 story brick victorians.
People generally prefer low/mid-rise density because they are easier to alter and allow more human feel.
Another problem is in the compitetion to build skyscrapers like every other city we now have towers that are very vacant as more people prefer offices in low or mid-rises.
Over all, highrises can be practical but here they are often a pain in the neck. They look good but over all it takes a lot to keep them filled and maintained.


----------



## centralcali19 (Jan 6, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> How that? First of all, in US style cities skyscrapers normally are not too often residential anyway and secondly do I doubt that skyscrapers are the perfect method to fight sprawl. To create urbanity, medium density and alternative concepts to mobility by car are already sufficient as basic ingredients.
> 
> Btw, I think the argument that the real estates are so expensive therefore one has to build skyscrapers funny. At least in US cities the CBD often looks like two low height parking houses are standing around for one skyscraper (which has a parking house below itself as well). The CBD's look like huge car storages.



i didnt say it was the ONLY way to fight sprawl, its one of many ways...


----------

