Then, as someone not part of your crowd, why does everything folks like you do seem so preachy, as if you all think EVERYONE should be living YOUR way? The urbanism crowd comes off as very smug and arrogant. Every single one of these channels, and cheerleading fans. You think you are the only people who exist.
The key to high rises is MIXED USE. For some reason even people who are into urbanism and similar forget this when talking about high rises, it is very possible to have highly livable and nice high rise areas if they also have the shops and restauraunts and cafes and so on that we always expect when talking about other types of high quality city living. That is why i have always thought the "Tower in the park" concept to be abit misguided since it's basically suburbanizing high rises. Don't get me wrong easy access to a park is fine but developers first priority should be providing tenants with easy access to shops, restaurants and so on. Give people somewhere to get a snack they can nibble on while enjoying that park.
I've always thought why we don't use land in a mixed capacity more. For instance a giant shopping mall. ohkay cool. that's neat. but now you have this MASSIVE space on the roof doing..... what? I've always thought it would be a great idea for malls to have apartments above, or giant gardens, or both. The gardens could provide the most fresh food to the businesses down below, the people living in the building have incredible access to amenities, and being a mall there's a pretty good chance things like public transit are already routed there. The amount of wasted space on roofs DRIVES me bonkers.
Ya I don't really understand why three and four bedroom, spacious apartments aren't really a thing, especially in high rises, except for super rich people.
The issue is that the areas zoned for high-rise development are in places that appeal more childless adults, arterial roads with access to transit, work and bars. The quieter places with great access to parks and schools tend to be zoned for single family homes. Why would a condo developer make a building suitable for families in a place that mostly young couples or single people want to live? The answer is that we need to allow for condo is family friendly areas.
@@ConswaMcGaga I mean... it's all supply and demand, right? They definitely exist they're just crazy expensive in most big cities (only speaking from Ontario experience, where housing in general is crazy expensive)
This is aimed at a North American viewership mostly, whereas I'm from a mid-sized to small Swiss city. But, I too ended up in a 70s high rise due to having to find a cheap enough place, on a par with my limited finances. And I have to say: I actually really, really like it up here. I'm on the 9th floor, with unusually big windows, providing me with lots of daylight and far views, yet there's zero lack of privacy. It's great. I even have a well-sized balcony. Other parts may not be as great, like the state of the laundry rooms we all share here (five washing machines for plus minus 60 apartments, you maybe can imagine how not everyone takes care of shared spaces as much as one could... But that's rather high-level lamenting, I'd say. Overall it's definitely a good deal for me - and if I'm ever forced to leave, due to renovations or so, I'll definitely miss this perfect mixture of being in a pretty central spot, yet feeling far away from things, too. And let's not forget the views. It's like... "visual breathing"!
Where I live, moderately upscale (NOT even luxury) apartments and condos have a washer-dryer hookup right in the apartment. They're usually not full-size appliances, so you end up doing a couple more loads of laundry per week, but that's a good trade-off to have your own washer-dryer. Otherwise, I'm with you: I've lived in high-rise apartment buildings and liked it. The view at night was spectacular and the breeze through open windows kept you cool.
@@danieldaniels7571 Probably not for long. We had a similar issue here with someone across the way peeping into our building with binoculars. We just shot video of him doing it and gave it to the police and his building manager. Stopped instantly.
My problem with the whole "tower in a park" concept is that the much-vaunted "green space" is almost always useless, dead space. It would be much better to have larger towers and to concentrate that green space into a large park so that it is large enough to be useful. This is the Manhattan approach, and it works well.
You can also really see this in the Apartment blocks in Europe (east and west) from the 50s to 70s. They have plenty of green space in between them that isn't really useable because you'd sit directly in front of the neighbours windows.
Or like in Calgary along 7th Ave they have twinned towers at either end of a long block, and between them is a rooftop terrace over the parking structure/stores below that had trees, a pool, bbq area, quiet reading nook, it was a full on park, and got lots of visitors being a useful space.
@@aintnothingbutaheartbreak9052 Please read again my comment. The land has already been cleared for the construction of towers. I am suggesting that the placement of the towers be altered to eliminate dead "green space" and turn that into a viable park.
The type of housing inside the tall building matters too! If it’s all bachelor and 1 bedrooms, then most people won’t see high rise living as something that could be for them or people like them. We need a healthy mix of multi-bedroom units in towers.
As a Hongkonger, I like skyscraper but our city is too claustrophobic. With 40 storey buildings surrounding 7-metre wide streets, it really feels like the sun never reaches the ground sometimes.
This is because Hong Kong gov owns all land and artificially restricts the land for profit when they sell it. It’s ridiculous we believe Hong Kong to be this very free society when it’s actually very much controlled by government agencies to a degree more than other countries that are often considered to be “oppressive” such as russia which is actually way more free than people believe.
Unfortunately Hong Kong like other Asian cities is just very populated. They have extra wildlife space further north but it isn’t allowed to be redeveloped on plus it would be rather difficult (if not impossible) due to how mountainous it is. Much of the bustle and liveliness of Hong Kong is unlike any other city I’ve ever seen but I agree that everything feels very close together in a claustrophobic kind of way, even more so than singapore
Anyone that hates on tower housing has never lived in one. Cause I'd 100% take tower housing over an old house with roommates. Also not to mention the views, THE VIEWS!
Tower housing just seems “unsocial” imo. here in my city the 20-30 storey buildings are just to big that people won’t take care of the building and fills up with all sorts of people since they are cheap. But medium apartament buildings here that are between 3 and 8 stories high more often seems much better!
I disagree, although towers can be fun and interesting places to live. I much prefer my little house in my small town. And yes, I've lived in towers big and small in the big city. Not my thing.
I loved living in a high rise in Chicago and I want to do it again. I love how the city sounds from more than 10 stories up, and high-floor views of Lake Michigan are breathtaking. I'm open to considering any real, practical downsides, but people who find them unliveable should speak for themselves.
I agree about the views. I always book a high floor in a high rise hotel when I visit a city. But it's always a relief to get out of the city and back home where the fields and trees are. I never visit parks in cities though. I just find them depressing. It feels fake, like a zoo. I'm glad there are people who like living in cities because they are fascinating from a technological perspective. Definitely worth visiting but I feel bad for the people who have to live there in order to make them possible. Hearing from people who actually like living in them helps alleviate my feelings of guilt about how relieved I feel to get out after visiting one.
@@youtubeuser1052 In Chicago I lived in a middle-density neighborhood full of trees and small gardens. I must admit I see where you're coming from with your perspective on parks, but for some reason the gardens of my neighbors always felt "real" to me. Some of my best memories from there are of walking outside in the spring and admiring the greenery and flowers.
@@youtubeuser1052 If you live near actual undeveloped land I can sympathize with that. A far greater majority of people in the US live in suburbia, where there might be more green, but it is just as artificial as it is on top of a skyscraper. Acres and acres of non-native monoculture grass kept flourescent green with fertilizers and pesticides, all hemmed in with highways no more than a mile apart, every single river and stream dammed and culverted. Currently I live on the edge of a city right next to farmland, which may feel idyllic to many Americans, but these are factory farms growing feed corn for factory farmed cattle. It might be prettier, but in terms of environmental impact it's not much better than any massive grey industrial building on the highway. Instead we should maximize the completely undeveloped land in the country- the nature reserves, the national parks- and we do that by moving into cities.
@@WolfSeril107 High-rise living is no more or less "natural" than any other type of residential environment. From rural singe family houses to supertalls, it all involves applied technology.
I've spent the last fifty years thinking about this issue. I've lived in a variety of urban housing. I presently live in a low-rise, very old apartment building. I like it. But I also spent years in a high-rise with a wonderful balcony view, which I enjoyed tremendously, and now miss. They are both in the same neighbourhood, and when it comes down to it, what matters is the street-level environment. The high-rise was in a dense neighbourhood with a tremendous variety of stores and institutions (libraries, churches, offices, etc.) available at street level. So I had the fabulous view and the anonymous privacy, and at the same time could step outside and be in a sidewalk cafe or a public library within minutes. A short walk brings me to lovely parks and wooded ravines. That's what makes life so pleasant in the St. Jamestown/Cabbagetown/Gay Village neighbourhoods. If I had been living in an anonymous tower surrounded by miles of parking lots out in Scarborough or North York, then tower life would have turned into an alienated nightmare. It's what happens at street level that counts. Tower life has its own pleasures and pluses, especially when there are balconies. A dense, walkable, colourful and lively downtown neighbourhood with a variety of housing is NOT harmed by a sprinkling of tall towers. They bring in the population that can support the atmospheric coffee shop or the delightful bakery or the odd-ball shop that specializes in vinyl records. And you can still have plenty of tree-lined streets and refreshing outdoor life. There is probably an ideal ratio, but that would probably vary depending on the physical layout and landforms.
I like high rises and medium rise buildings as a concept but I hate thin walls. If there is some way they can guarantee that I can live in an apartment and never EVER have to hear my neighbors, then sign me up. However, in my experience, even expensive apartments are no guarantee that I won't be up at 1AM hearing my neighbors going at it to the sound of bass-heavy music.
I feel like it wouldn't be unreasonable to require soundproofing between units, both vertically and horizontally. I mean, just using rockwool would go a long way toward that AND make the whole more fireproof AND thermally insulated
@@joranbooth5529 I agree with it should be a requirement, but I don't really see how adding rockwool between the apartments would make it more thermally insulated. You are normally more worried about the heat/cold escaping through the outside walls rather than it going between rooms in a building :P
I live ina medium density, 4-storey building in Plateau Mont-Royal. I barely hear my neighbours. Once you know what to look for, it's not very hard to knock on the walls when you're looking at an apartment and know how the sound-proofing is. The whole issue of medium density = noisy neighbours mainly comes from the fact that these buildings are old.
That's important for a lot of folks but less so for others. When there is a complex set of many different priorities and preferences, that is an argument for NOT mandating certain types of housing but keeping all varieties legal. There are always trade offs with housing, variety (and honesty about downsides) lets people work out how to manage those trade offs for themselves.
Funny to see you used my complex as an example of surface parking. It must've been built (late 70s) at a time with parking minimums, because there is probably 2 spots for every household. Needless to say, 2/3 of the parking lot is empty. A lot of people here commute by public transportation, since it's so close to a major LRT station, so most of those spots go unused. They could easily fit a fourth tower in those empty lots!
That's the point even in higher income suburbs all the 3 car garages and 6 car drive ways sit mostly empty because it is difficult to have more then three car. Why should it be different in an urban area with more affordable flats.
@@paxundpeace9970 Some of those three car garages belong to people with "children" who are old enough to drive and have their own cars. And even with only two cars, it may be difficult to fit them into a two car garage if someone has a hobby like woodworking, metalworking, electronics, or anything else where they accumulate a lot of tools and materials. Someone I knew when I was a kid had a job where he bought used x-ray equipment, repaired it and resold it. Half of his two car garage was taken up by his tools. This was a side business and wouldn't have made any money if he had needed to rent a workshop. It was only possible because he had skills and enough space to use those skills.
@@youtubeuser1052 that's a lot of special pleading man. Are you really arguing that we should enact a province-wide policy that impacts everyone's housing + commute just because someone might have a hobby plus kids?
@@ChasmChaos If the current policy forbids garages, then yes I'd say enact a policy that allows people who want garages to be able to buy homes with them. You did say "province-wide", right? If you'd asked "should we enact a city-wide policy that mandates all downtown studio apartments must have a garage then I'd say no. I don't know exactly what a providence is in your country (or even what country you're posting from) but it sounds big. Though I do seem to recall from the one time I visited Tokyo that there were an awful lot of homes with garages despite the high population density. Tokyo felt like a three dimensional ant farm, but I remember thinking that there were a lot of beautiful houses packed in a tiny space and a lot of them seemed to have at least private parking and some had fully enclosed garages. BTW the last part of your post sounds like having a hobby and kids is an edge case. I don't think I'd want to live somewhere that having a hobby and kids is an unusual thing. Not sure if you meant to imply it's unusual to have both.
I like both in a visual, urban sense. For my personal preference I prefer to live in a walkup where I can walk up and down the stairs every day (on the second to fourth stories). I don’t like elevators, I have lived in highrises but I live on the 3rd or 4th floor and take the stairs.
I like stairs as well, but disabled people commented here that low-rises lack elevators which they need. Well, that problem can be solved by getting the disabled to live at the bottom (hope that doesn't sound offensive)or installing elevators in all apartment blocks.
@@موسى_7 That is how many buildings seem to be designed, as in the past I’ve noticed some hotels have more rooms designated as accessible on the ground floor. It especially smooths out the experience for folks who use something other than a wheelchair (like a walker) or are more limited by energy or balance than motor function.
I also don’t really like elevators (and actually kind of enjoy walking up a couple flights of stairs) but I’d like an elevator option for situations like when I twisted my ankle a couple years ago or when my mom who has a bad knee comes to visit.
Elevators are a necessity. Yes, I could use the stairs if I'm only on the 3rd or 4th floor, but I don't want to have to carry things like groceries or furniture up the stairs. Then again if I'm living in a tower, im going on the 10th floor or above.
One thing I almost never see mentioned is 10-15 story height flats, they're much denser than 3-6 story flats, yet they don't require as much free space around them. My mother owns a fairly affordable flat that she bought because of her work back when she was young. The building is 13 stories high, with 3 2-bedroom units on every floor. There are three of this flats on the lot (one has 4 1-bedroom and another has 2 3-bedroom units on each floor), yet they are all roughly the same size and take up around 65% of the land they sit on. The remaining 35% is mostly reserved for a pleasent park in between, since all the parking can be fit on either the ground floor (that is excluding the street front, which has stores), or the level underneath. I think this is also something for many cities to think about. The reason I went into so much detail is because I want to demonstrate the achievableness and versatility of such a model.
I live in the Taipei area on the 10th floor, and what makes my neighborhood lively is what happens on the street every day. We have so many foodstands and ground level shops in the arcade. There's always a new drink shop opening with a weird new visual style, and people are always shopping at the market.
I went from living in a very low-density suburb to the 6th floor of a seven-story dorm building when I went to college, and I loved it. Not that it was "high-rise" per-se, but the view was spectacular to me and it gave me a similar feeling to the comfy seclusion of being high-up in a tree like a treehouse. I could see how it might get a bit dizzying at true high-rise levels but I don't really understand people's seeming obsession with being close to the ground. We should allow development for all preferences and budgets.
As you guys mentioned, so much of the criticism of towers seems to come from the subjective aesthetic preference for "traditional" architecture. Many people just hate the ~look~ of "glass boxes" (as I so often see it phrased). But what so many people overlook, and what you guys get at, is that the "aesthetics" of traditional architecture often (and increasingly) do not produce the spaces people actually want to ~live~ in. Traditional architecture is nice to look at, but often provides significantly less natural light and significantly less usable floor space for a given footprint. As someone who has lived in traditional, "picturesque" mid-rise buildings ~and~ in "high"-rises in both DC and Manhattan (with DC being roughly 14 stories), I can say, definitively, that the high-rises were significantly more enjoyable living spaces. More light, more space, cheaper, and-what this video overlooks-more amenities (doorman, package/mail service, gym, ground-floor retail, trash service, etc.). So, even beyond the cost element, when cities block the construction of towers, they're also forcing residents to accept worse material living conditions purely to satisfy the aesthetic concerns of individuals who won't even live in those buildings in the first place. It's completely selfish and counterproductive toward the goal of making your city more livable.
So many fallacies in one comment, it's amazing how myths get propagated by simply not questioning them. Glass boxes are overall bad, period, this is not a matter of aesthetics, but concrete environmental and physiological and psychological proof. t The "aesthetics" of traditional architecture aren't impeding the production the spaces people actually want to ~live~ in, bad designers and planners are. Compare a 1980's and 90's nyc residential tower with copy pasted modernist designs, low ceilings and varandas no one uses, to a RAMSA tower. It's also selfish to forced everyone else to live with ugly towers, that hubris is so anglo it hurts. The city is for everyone, by making it more livable you have to have more housing but also beauty.
I'd love a cheap tower rental with a south-facing balcony, as long as I can take the stairs every day and get quads the size of a pumpkin. I love the look of tall apartment buildings all around, and if it means more continuous green space in the city, that's a huge win. Reducing traffic is much more of an issue for me
What's maddening about talking about housing is people take their own preferences, and counter discussion topics with those. It's like they can't imagine that housing isn't built for only them.
Its like they don't realize that if you allow all housing types to exist then you have less competition over the market you want to be in. Some people want to live in a cabin in the woods where the closest neighbors are a mile away, if this was the only housing available in the country we wouldn't fit and they would be ungodly expensive. This is basically why the suburbs in California are so expensive, they are our of space for more homes and won't build anything more dense to free up the markets and end the shortage, which would massively help with the homelessness crisis that is a stain on their state/cities. (The homeless aren't inherently bad people, but nobody should have to live like that and desperate people do bad things. Cities with large homeless populations should be ashamed of not addressing the root of the problem)
I want to point out that while many tall buildings are not nice to look at, many can be. Chicago is an example of a city with very attractive and even historical and classically styled skyscrapers (the Wriggley building, Tribune tower, the London House). Because of this, Chicago is one of the most affordable metros in the US and Canada. It is the 3rd largest metro area between the US and Canada, yet a one bedroom apartment in the most expensive neighborhood in Chicago can be had in a tower for $1,600 per month in rent. The reason is, lots of towers, but with only truly remarkable and pleasing to look at buildings being built.
Very relatable here in Brisbane, Australia. There are frequently developments proposed that are high (13+ storeys), often higher than the current city plan suggests. People get very angry about it, and particularly fearful that it will lead to "carmageddon". The mindset perplexes me, particularly when such developments are usually suggested close to train stations and bus rapid transit stations (busways as we call them), and quite close to the inner city. The result is we have endless sprawl, and new satellite developments with low density detached housing 30-40km outside the city, not near train lines, and then we wonder why the arterial roads into the city are a congestion nightmare, and the outer suburb train station carparks are overwhelmed. Then we end up with public money being spent building multi level commuter carparks at these outer train stations, at a cost of construction of up to $100,000 per car space. Of course, the decision makers are elected representatives, and they fear public backlash, so they often make bad decisions on the back of populism. It's an endless cycle, and I really don't know how to change people's perceptions. And, for full disclosure, I live in a single family detached home about 15km from the city centre. My suburb is zoned in such a way to prevent larger medium or high density developments other than townhouses. I think that's wrong, but there's no appetite to change it. I get around most places by bike, and there's not-horrible public transport by bus, but I am constantly amazed by people in my community complaining about driving - made worse by those developments way on the outskirts pushing more and more cars through our neighbourhood. And that's leading to the State and Federal Government spending $244 million to duplicate the motorway bridge, as the first stage of widening the motorway to 6 or maybe even 8 lanes... The cycle continues. ua-cam.com/video/IVEjSimBWzM/v-deo.html
There’s also the (unfortunate) bad rep that new high rises have had in Australia due to some well publicised stories about poor construction quality (particularly in Sydney, e.g. Opal Towers, Mascot Towers). From the people I’ve spoken to about home purchases (mostly younger home buyers) there has been a reluctance to buy new apartments due to the lack of confidence in their long term integrity.
I love medium-density, but they are ALWAYS not wheelchair accessible. I’m in a wheelchair and can never live in mid rise buildings… I wish they’d make many accessible for the millions of us who need it.
This is a great discussion and highlights the importance of preference. Apparently, I hold the opposite of most common views. I want to live on a very high floor because I need the view. I'm inspired when I stand on street level and see tall buildings all around me. I prefer balconies on very high floors that are exposed to the weather patterns up higher (and aren't exposed to noise and thieves from the street). I feel claustrophobic when every building is a uniform 3-4 stories because there's nothing that draws my eyes away to the distance (even if that distance is up).
I hold the complete opposite view of yours which is also uncommon. I was raised in farm country and would prefer to have a home on a back country road were i never feel the need to lock my doors and sleep on the second floor. I find it disorienting when buildings dwarf the trees around them and generally find cities claustrophobic and intimidating. Obviously we need to let housing on the full spectrum of massive towers to homes that have no neighbors for as far as you can see be built so everyone can live where they want and not compete for it with people who hate that lifestyle.
@@jasonreed7522 Especially on back country roads I would lock my door and sleep on the second floor (and I grew up in a very small village in the middle of nowhere). But I would lock my door in a city as well. What is it about not locking doors anyway? It's not like it's that inconvenient to make sure your door is locked. That doesn't mean I'm constantly afraid or anything.
@@jasonreed7522 My grandpa lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere and never locked his doors until one night someone stole his tools and used them to steal the gas from his truck...you can get crime anywhere.
By the way, I think the street-facing part of tall buildings makes a huge difference. There's a building in my city which, for years, I thought was a regular mid-rise building with businesses on the ground floor, until one day I looked up and it turned out there's a >10-storey tower on top of it!
I feel that one solution could be replacing excessive zoning with a “gentle density” type zoning. Basically a single family neighborhood could allow rowhouses, multiplexes, and apartments up to a certain level. Gradually as the average height of the neighborhood gets taller individual buildings can be built even taller maybe with only set back and street width limiting a buildings true maximum height. I’m not saying this is ideal but it may be a more palpable solution that doesn’t necessarily emphasize bias towards one type of housing but is simply a way of rezoning in response to demand. It could also quell some of the very widespread (justified or not) arguments that allowing too much housing development at one time leads to gentrification
This sounds especially promising as usually the next step denser of development doesn't stand out to the existing neighborhood. A duplex just looks like a large single family home and only stands out if your in one of the suburban cookie cutter hellscapes where only the numbers on the mailbox can identify your house from the crowd. Maybe say you can't be more than 3 stories taller than you neighborhood average, or adjust for the zone so its stricter in residential areas but in the core with towers the sky's the limit. (Metaphorically speaking)
Great vid as always. I will admit that living in a high rise in Ottawa, I do feel a little isolated sometimes. Taking the elevator down 20 stories, including dressing up in winter creates just enough of an inconvenience that I'll procrastinate going outside sometimes. I still like my apartment overall. But I noticed after living there for over 5 years, that sometimes the feeling of isolation can creep up. Also, the walls between me and my neighbours is absurdly thin and I can hear them clearly having a conversation on the phone.
Actually that point's not lost in most of the more popular "urbanist" videos I've came across on YT. Those videos point out that restrictive zoning laws favoring single-family homes is the main reason developers need to build up as land for multiple dwellings is so scare (thus pricing out building middle housing). The argument tend less to be about "towers are bad" and more about revising zoning to have more viable options for people at different income levels and/or life status.
I don't get this desire so many have to ban or disregard various types of housing. All housing types come with their pros and cons and and it is good to have a wide selection of them all. Personally I love living in tall buildings and the way they look, but I understand that not everyone feels as I do. The only housing type I dislike would be large suburbs, but I do understand why many people are drawn to them and I would never dream of banning such developments outright (even if they are economically and environmentally obscenely inefficient). However, as the market has been biased in favor of such housing for so long, I don't think it is unreasonable to restrict it for a while to allow other types to catch up in supply. Funny enough, with lighter restrictions overall, I have a feeling that the market would gradually find the correct balance as development will naturally cater to actual demand (though it would be nice to see some cultural shift towards more efficient development models as we do live in a finite world).
I fully agree with all of this, except i like to live in the country well away from cities and people. Which is why I support denser development options so the suburbs don't expand ever outward into rural spaces that need to stay rural, both as a food source and as important nature reserves. The only housing that should be banned are all the idiots on the barrier islands, those are sandbars barely a few meters/yards above high tide and serve the vital function of taking the brunt of the oceans wrath before it reaches the mainland. Talk about an inefficient place to live, that asking every storm and hurricane to try and wash away your mansion costing millions in property damage every storm on islands that should be a nature preserve for the seabirds. (Mini rant over)
@@jasonreed7522 Funny enough, I was exploring google earth the other day and looking at some of those sandbars. The same thoughts crossed my mind... why was this land allowed to be developed in such a way? It really shows how messed up our priorities as a civilization actually are. One of the main things I dislike about the suburbs is how they pretend to be rural while leaching city resources, usually at the cost of either those living in denser parts of the city or from higher levels of government. That lack of awareness of suburbanites as to how much their lifestyle is subsidized is astonishing. Unlike with those living an actual rural lifestyle who are mostly living off of their own resources... Well usually... A lot of the farmers here in Alberta seem to be blissfully unaware of how much all those rural paved roads cost to build and how much it saves them in vehicle maintenance...
@@AbsolutePixelMaster i think the rural subsidization in the form of infrastructure payed for by State taxes (which are obviously going to be primarily from rich cities) is reasonable because cities are inherently dependent on those farmers for food because currently cities can't economically feed themselves within their borders. Obviously people will always gripe about us vs them, but everyone is way more dependent on eachother than they want to admit. Generally cities will have the best doctors and be centers of "intelectual industry" that the rural people need, last time i checked farmers didn't build the internet. And Rural regions provide raw resources (LA was built on an oil field so exceptions), food, and cheap land for high footprint activities like power plants and refinaries. Suburbs exist mainly so people can have the benefits of the city but have a quiter place to raise a family. This isn't inherently bad, its just 99% of suburbs in the USA and Canada are cookie cutter car dependent blights on the land. And i will say one step more rural than rural and just as important are Wilderness areas, be it national parks, undesirable land (tundra and taiga of the far North), or just protected but inhabited (the Adirondack Park in NY is the largest state park and a bunch of people live their but Walmart is forbidden from moving in). Wilderness areas serve the roll of preventing the biosphere from collapsing and as buffers for weather (like barrier islands, or mountain wetlands reducing flood intensity).
@@jasonreed7522 I do agree with you, and in fact I almost posted a bit about how it probably comes full circle resulting in lower food prices for myself. I changed my mind last minute only because I remembered that we actually import most of our food here from the USA and BC. But it is true, we are all interdependent and it is much harder to find fault with farmers as they do provide an essential service. However, when it comes to the idea of wanting a quiet place to raise a family as defense of excessive suburbs... well that is where I struggle. Having been raised in the suburbs I remember being extremely isolated an anti-social. Additionally there are countless studies coming out showing that kids raised in suburbs often have considerably weaker social skills as well as short combining in many other areas. And that doesn't even begin to cover all the issue of segregation brought about by suburbs... So although it is a common belief that the suburbs are the ideal place to raise a family, the data says otherwise. Sorry about the brief reply, I would love to talk in more detail but I have to rush to class!
If a developer only has a plot of a certain size to work with, it makes sense to allow them to use the space as effectively as possible (within reason). However when planning on a larger scale, having lots of high-rises placed close together blocks out the sun and makes it so apartments on the lower floors, as well as streets and gardens/parks, don't get any sunlight at all. This is another reason why high-rise residential buildings tend to be spaced farther apart than mid-rise.
I lived in a tall-ish tower (only 7 stories) for a while. It wasn't bad at all, mostly because it was a 1 mile commute to work with lots of parkland nearby. The only real downside was all the car parking about, but I was part of that problem as a car owner so I couldn't get too mad about it.
Taller buildings are also much more expensive to maintain vs mid-rise. Usually 30-40 year buildings requite serious rehaul and issue is especially with condominiums nobody is paying that upkeep.
I'm really lucky to live in Quebec where there's suburbs like st.lambert where there are midrise, highrise, townhouses, and single lot homes all in the same neighborhood within walking distance of the city centre and the train station that leads downtown. Cities should really adopt this model
High rises can definitely be good as long as they're not "towers in a park" and real thought is given to how the building interfaces with the street and neighborhood.
I support mixed density. Put a tower or two in a neighbourhood. It lets the people in the towers actually have a view and to not overwhelm the neighbourhood.
Absolutely love this video! Originally European but raised in NYC so im a huge fan of highrises myself and the one thing I can never agree with all these "more walkable city' folk is limiting to only mid-rise buildings. Thanks for showing arguments for the other side. My friends and I never found the social isolation part or "human scale" part of high rises true. We live in NYC so there is so much to do thanks to A LOT OF people being able to live next to everything and every block having 25 different commercial spaces. I don't agree with the sentiment "walkable city" = "mid rise". The best part about highrises are the options, like you said you can CHOOSE to live in the lower floors, I have never in my life had to worry about elevators, this argument doesn't make sense to me and generally lower floors = cheaper rent too. Obviously, I also agree mid rise buildings should 100% be a thing and be way more common for people who want that option. Not every city needs to be a Manhattan but I believe we all deserve options. I really appreciate this video!
I'm personally a fan of "medium-density", "mixed-use" design as well... It's very difficult to achieve a sustainable, connected neighbourhood (at least in the context of an urban area) otherwise.
I don't agree with this sentiment at all being from NYC. Medium density should not be the upper limit, it should be a viable one but high rises offer plenty of connectiveness especially in Manhattan which each neighborhood as its own culture and charm. But I also agree not every city needs to be a Manhattan. There should be options just like anything.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle Oh yeah 100% there's something beautiful about the sheer scale of places like Manhattan. But i can't help but feel like everyday life is ideal for so many more people if more people can be distributed evenly across a city
@@thecadeaujournals3980 Oh for sure brother! Like I said I agree NOT every place, and certainly not most places SHOULD be like Manhattan unless theres a huge demand there. I just think there shouldnt be any hard rule limiting that possibility in the future for cities. The cost of living in NYC and Chicago is getting higher and higher since there really aren't many options for those of us who like these kind of massive scales cities. And while I agree there certainly doesn't need to be a TON of them it would be nice having a few options here and there once in a while, but also having medium density for the majority of people who also prefer that. And hey even low density once in a while for those who actually like the American suburbs lmfao
In my experience, the 30 second elevator ride is wildly optimistic. In the highrise I used to live in going from street level to inside my appartment was easily 5 minutes. If you need multiple trips that really adds up.
@@matthijspw hey man. I know the feeling but for different reasons. Lived on the 4th floor, far from single elevator to parking garage (two elevators, only one to lower parking) and it was the slowest slowest slowest elevator. Easily 5 min door to door. Just surprised it's not better in bigger byildings
Incredibly lucid, perfect video. Congrats! I personally love tall buildings with human scale no setbacks, as they used to do here in Brazil before the 70s. Loving cities, I definitely love being in the middle of a buildings canyon, I feel engrossed and part of the City.
There's this part of my city that is mostly full of 8 to 14 storey tall towers of flats that, if it weren't for factors unrelated to the building sizes, would be one of, if not the best place in town to live and do nearly everything in. Unsurprisingly, as with most good neighbourhoods, it was planned around public transit. More specifically, it was originally built as a 19th century tram suburb.
From the 3 charts shown, it looks like the 7-storey building (is that the same as 5-over-2?) is optimal in all 3 - in the 3rd obviously, it's got the lowest cost per unit, but in the other 2, it represents (among the 3 data points shown) the point of diminishing returns on both curves. Of course, this is very limited data, but it makes sense to me. I *want* to live in a building that's tall enough to justify at least one elevator, for ADA (USA) accessibility, and for moving furniture & big appliances & such in & out. And the odd high-rise with a not-too-slender aspect ratio is a good thing to have around too. Most importantly, there has to be enough ground-level business/commercial stuff built into the neighborhood to make it truly walkable, and ubiquitous mass transit, walking, bicycling &c. so no one needs or wants a car.
The ideal city should not need private cars and would ban them in the core. Obviously not everywhere can ditch the car, this morning i was seeing where i could go using google maps and lets just say that dear god America's trains suck. My curiosity was to see if i could take a train close enough home on holidays that my family could pick me up, i can drive it in 6-7 hours, a train takes 18 and the closest station was 3 hours away from my hometown. I checked Hartford to Syracuse (close enough to me and some of my friends, 4 and a bit by car, 8 hours by train). Needless to say i will be stuck driving for a while yet. If the train is a comparable time i would try it, because that saves all the wear on the car and stress of bad drivers and risk of zoning out (highway driving is mind numbingly boring right until someone tries to kill you, i would much prefer a train). Interestingly, Amtrack has 1 route from DC to Orlando Florida that lets you take your car with you, something i advocate as a way to help get Americans on the train as this solves the last mile problem, especially when visiting rural locations. (Still terrible to bring cars into cities)
interestingly I read that 7 storeys is the worst. because 6 storeys you can build with wood. anything above that, it's concrete which adds a big overhead cost, and they need to build a lot higher to justify it. that is why you always see either 3-5 or 15+ and not much in between.
@@pr0wnageify that *is* interesting. I wonder why those charts came out the way they did then. Maybe if there were more than three data points on the chart, and more than three areas charted, it would present a clearer picture.
@@jasonreed7522 Major European cities effectively do this. It's insanely expensive driving a car in zone 1 London, for instance, due to a bunch of pollution fees. Americans and Canadians really need to travel to European cities and try living there (actually living + commuting, not just going to the tourist areas). In London, getting from point A to B is a matter of a 5-15 minute walk and taking a couple of trains/buses. To an American, this probably sounds awful, but it's unbelievable how much your health improves when you get 20-30 minutes of walks every day by just commuting. Densification + public transport means you are never more than 30-45 minutes away from work, parks, museums, woodlands, schools, hospitals, shopping centers and anything else you may need. And all you gotta do is walk for a bit and get on a train. It doesn't matter if you live in a million pound mansion or subsidized housing. I have never felt the same level of freedom in any other city.
@@ChasmChaos i think most of America's problems are best described as "Chicken or the Egg" problems and "Self fulfilling prophecies". Example: trains suck because nobody uses them, and nobody uses them because they suck. Or Walk ability: people drive from the suburbs because they don't feel safe walking/biking/taking transit, and the reason it doesn't feel safe is that car suburbs cause many social issues including housing shortages resulting in more street homeless and depressed neighborhoods that nobody wants to be in unprotected by a steel car. Not using this as any sort of excuse for the problems, just how they got their and showing how hard it can be to fix them. And i think your right about needing to expose Americans to other lifestyles as a way to increase public buy in to these objectively better systems. Or atleast the idea of having a nice multipurpose trail from downtown out into residential areas where you could enjoy walking the dog or a 10min bike to the park. (My tiny rural hometown has a "bike path" (motor vehicle banned path) that is just a 5km loop around a golf course with 2 points of entry that gets all sorts of use as a multipurpose path, now imagine if that actually connected places and had sidewalks with lights to cross streets. But instead we drive to the bike path, and i bet that sounds awful to anyone who watches this channel)
They need to add a mail room for us delivery drivers! That's the only bad thing about apartment / high rises, takes forever to go to each door for deliveries!
I've been agreeing more than I thought I would, great arguments! I'll add to that that mixing medium and high density can give a unique charater to a neighborhood. Montreal is still a good exemple there, if you compare a really medium-density neighborhood like Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to something mixing high and low density like Milton Parc. They share some architecture styles but the presence of tall building clearly differenciate both of them.
Personally, I love the podium+tower model that’s so common here in Hong Kong. (The podium structure is often a mall, but they suit the climate here, providing air conditioned spaces to hang out during the hot and humid summers.) the podiums and plethora of public parks provide ample green space, the tall towers reduce traffic noise and improve ventilation, and they’re usually atop or near metro or bus stations. As for the social aspect, it is quite common for families to occupy flats in the same towers or complexes. My neighbors chat just as often in the tower lobby as they would at the post box in, say, Europe. And while the tower+podium model is associated with expensive developments, public-housing towers are also very common here, offering the very same benefits, though usually further from the town centers.
In Paris a interesting discussion is currently happening that they are in need for more space and are weighting in to remove hight limits for parts of city. Currently the biggest area in Paris without strict high limit is La defense and commercial central business district distant to the urban core.
The last point is shaky. LA has lots of demand and either A) single family homes or B) tall towers and few in between. It has tall towers because there’s a restriction on supply But even somewhere like Buffalo which has decreasing demand for housing every year still has a similar city scape. This is because of restrictions on supply not because of high demand.
In Toronto the architecture of the condo towers has gotten much better in recent years, including the street level. Some even retain and repair dilapidated historic structures at the base.
There's a tower near me that has some townhouse entrances. I kind of wish I got one of those now because I like to take my bike in and out quickly, instead of taking it in the elevator. I end up walking more instead of biking because there is some hassle (partly because there are two places where there are doors that you have to hold to keep open, which is awkward with a bike.) I enjoy being up high through as well. Like you said: the views. Also for the light, I feel like I can have my shades open and generally speaking, people can't see me very well (unless they're really trying; in which case, that's their problem not mine).
Love the video! I'll add that we should love slab-like towers too (wide but thin). Those make multiple bedrooms far more affordable, vs. the 30-meter square floorplates we get in my city, which make multiple bedrooms uneconomical.
One problem with high rises as a solution to home ownership is that if you own less of the land, you have a depreciating asset that will eventually need to be torn down - especially the way they're built now. This doesn't really solve the poverty cycle and you might be better off renting and putting your money into ETFs (or whatever your financial advisor tells you to).
If I could learn to stop worrying I could probably function normally in society. Society Anxiety, as well as other forms of Anxiety, make being packed together with other people terrifying. That being said I don't oppose it just because living like that is detrimental to my sanity, I just live in the country where it takes 20 minutes to walk to town. And I have lived in cities breifly and even took the bus for almost a year. Very unpleasant but maybe would have been livable if I wasn't also having a breakdown and failing out of College.
Even if you don't want to live in a tower, it still benefits you, because it will increase housing supply, driving down rent in other buildings nearby, even ones on the ground. The only people who lose are scalpers over invested in the real estate bubble.
I might have missed it, but the graphs in the middle about cost per unit also don't include the public costs to build/maintain infrastructure. These costs do get passed on to residents, albeit likely not in an equitable fashion.
One thing towers often miss out on is quality bicycle parking, you're basically required to have your bike in your unit or its going to get stolen. They really should build actually secure bicycle stratagem in buildings to cut down on the amount of parking needed.
This is a very interesting video. Big boom of new townhomes in BC's Lower Mainland, away from downtown, is clearly visible. Once you have access to land outside your own front door, it's hard to go for an appartment, unless necessary. Thanks for the video! Greetings from the West Coast! 😊
Excellent analyses and this debate can really go way longer. However one key element that often seems to be forgotten is that designing "tall" or "wide" should reflect the vision that one city has for itself as socio-economic unit. Flexible conceptual plan that can be projected on data for the at least the upcoming 50 to 100 years. There is often a feeling that, though we have great capabilities for statistics, we still design somehow in "ad-hoc" manner. There are plenty expectations of course but the general trends is still this feeling. (personally speaking.)
Good video and thank you for using the term "English North America". I don't know if you came up with that or not but it's the perfect term. Like it's the perfect short way of saying the USA and Canada. North America is close but Mexico usually isn't being considered so it's not factually correct. I love this term, "English North America".
@@kanucks9 Oh darn. I guess your kind of right. Shoot. Quebec does have way better zoning laws. But it feels weird to talk about two big countries and excluding one big chunk of one of those countries. Hmmm. I just wanted a good way to talk about both countries but yeah it does kind of exclude Qubec which works for this example but not when you just want to talk about both countries in general.
@@jonathanwilkinson4299 I feel like if you want to exclude Quebec (and Montreal specifically) for that reason you'd also have to exclude the handful of dense mixed-use US cities like NYC.
@@georgedaole-wellman3950 I don't want to exclude any parts of the USA or Canada. But when you say english speaking it kind of excludes Quebec. I just want a good term that talks about both USA and Canada.
I'd be interested to know what the power consumption of low - up to 4/5 stories - as opposed to tower. With heat pumps and solar, the low/med rise should have v low grid demand, whereas the tower will always have major grid usage
I think the better metric would be grid demand per resident. While more units will necessarily use more power, I might wager that high rises might out-compete lower rises in terms of energy use per tenant. It's not as though if the high rises disappeared, the people who live in and consume energy/water/etc. just disappear too. Arguably their consumption in different housing types might greatly exceed that as residents of a high rise (consider all the communal amenities that become individuated in other scenarios). Many new buildings are built to LEED gold and platinum standards, which include stringent energy and water efficiency standards.
if a city could coordinate development effectively enough to make smooth curves out of cityscapes, rising and falling smooth gradients between medium and high rise building, you could get a lot of aesthetic value while keeping variety and localised density. but eh, private land development doesn't really lend itself to big long term projects like that.
Did you know Montréal's skyline tries to match the silhouette of Mont-Royal. The downtown area is built down of the mount This is best experienced from a view from outside the city, I recommend it from the top of neighbouring Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Demand more from your city , it is possible! :)
Tall buildings and even skyscrapers can be quite beautiful, see the woolworth building or the empire state building. As for height limit laws, i think a dynamic height limit would solve a lot of problems people have. For example calculate the average building height of a neighbourhood or the population per square kilometer and set the height limit based on that. That way no one can plop a skyscraper next to single family homes, but the city can grow higher when needed as the height limit gradually increases together with its population.
Visited Vancouver twice, find the development style extremely stark and unpleasant, much prefer the dense parts of san Francisco that are mostly 3-5 stories with some tall towers mixed in
I kind of think of 8 stories as reasonable ground level density. I'm writing this from the 3rd floor (counting ground as 0th) of a European city building that has a 7th floor. It's where our housing cooperative's sauna is :D
There is also the concept of the vertical village. Meaning, you do a high rise, but you Integrate it in a way that it fosters community within the building.
Some of us like living in towers. I do and I absolutely love it. I have lived in a two story apartment building, a 10 story apartment building, and an 18 story building. The 18 story building is easily my favorite.
I live almost 30 stories off the ground. Much prefer it to ground level. The view is great. Always something interesting to look at. On a clear day, i can see all the way to Niagara falls from Toronto
First time watching one of your videos, and mid way through the video I switched AirPods and it switched from the girl to the guys voice. Took me back for a second lol
Another benefit for building taller mixed use buildings in the US is that it makes individual units in them easier to finance. Fannie Mae limits the non-residential usage to 35% in condos and co-ops and limits single entity-ownership to only 2 units for 5-20 units but increase to 20% for buildings with 21 or more units. We can't build affordable walkable neighborhoods if low and middle income people can't qualify for adorable financing.
For me I don't hate towers, but when they're surrounded by low density car dependent sprawl I wince a bit at the fact that you could have had a middle density human scale suburb or town. It really hits home when I go back home and to think how much better that town could have been.
This is such a clear means of gentrification in my area. As the suburb villages around my city are their own municipalities, they get final say in things like building height limits. As this city is one of the cities that has seen the highest rate of growth over the past decades, there is a massive housing shortage. To get an affordable rental apartment in the city there is a waiting list of about 15 years. If you go onto the much less regulated private market, you're looking at rents that are some of the highest in the country expressed in euro per square metre. The villages around the city want to stay low density at almost any cost. So most of them have implemented regulations which restrict building height to 3 or 4 floors. Where they used to be as high as 7. In order to try and keep up with demand for housing, my city has raised the maximum build height from 16 to 25 floors. And developers are actively pushing for 30+ floors. There just isn't a choice, the demand exceeds supply so much that these giant towers are simply the only solution. But there is a catch. In order to build these giant apartment complexes, the developers are required to reserve the ground floor and first floor for small businesses and shops. The building needs to provide ample parking for itself, so as to not increase the local parking pressure. All of which must be provided underground, surface parking is just straight up not allowed. Buildings above a certain population estimate must provide infrastructure for a bus stop nearby.
The problems of freighting are really difficult in buildings more than 6 stories; the actual costs are much higher than they seem and the dangers are significant, as insulation standards increase the costs become very prohibitive and if OIL based insulation is used you end up with GRENFELL mass manslaughter.
If taller buildings are much more expensive, why do they get built? Presumably developers (private and public) don't want to spend money unnecessarily.
@@OhTheUrbanity They aren't well insulated. if we tried to do them to high standards you would see the problem. I'm not saying we cannot do it; only you have to factor in ALL the costs including a fire department SPECIFICALLY EQUIPT to deal with it otherwise you are just gambling peoples lives.
This video changed the way I think about towers... I live in a late 1800s 3 plex in Montreal and have always felt that these are the types of buildings that make a city beautiful. This video makes the great point that 1) it is really eye level where the beauty should be focused and 2) people's desire for a low skyline does not trump others' ability to have affordable housing. Kudos!
I've always been very defensive about high-rise building in the past but seeing this video changed my mind!! (If those buildings do reduce the price of appartement and not just add luxury ones like I've seen unfortunately too many times).
One thing I did not see y'all discuss is the environmental impacts of tall buildings vs mid-rise buildings. I have heard both sides but the general consensus seems to be that mid-rise is much more sustainable/environmentally friendly. PS: Loved your video though :)
So well said. It's so easy to avoid high-rise buildings if you want! Even in NYC the vast majority of the city is low-rise neighborhoods, and the vast majority of time is spent in one's own neighborhood. How are you going to have a strong opinion about outlawing buildings you only have to walk by occasionally or see on the horizon?
An issue fire departments and emergency services here have been raising is response times. Outcomes for people on upper floors are measurably worse because it takes longer for paramedics to reach them. This is a hidden danger of dense infill development.
Imagine my surprise when you show the Alta Vista Towers in Ottawa, where I last lived before I moved out of the city. So much parking lot. :P On the plus side, you could walk to the nearby train station to catch a VIA. (Provided you didn't mind taking a perhaps-not-entirely-approved-path over the rails ;) Great video! As an architect I very much love the concept of mid-density neighborhoods as well as well-done high rise and high urban environments. As you note, it's about options to cater to many different desires and price points. I'll also add it's about design -- many people don't like certain types because they've never encountered or experienced well-designed versions of them. :)
Great analysis. Gotta point out 1-2 other things - shadows and wind tunnels. It's difficult to get around how towers can darken a street overall, or create new wind tunnels, which has very real consequences on livability, walkability and attractiveness of the surrounding areas. Zoning has to be strategic to ensure the right land gets sunlight at the right time of day.
What's interesting is that the slender Vancouver-style point towers that go taller than wider are actually planned with exactly that goal: minimising impacts on shadows, wind, and views like wider buildings.
@@OhTheUrbanity true, no doubt on the effectiveness of Vancouverism on urban planning. I just wish it was applied in more cities, as I think that many of the anti-tower sentiment around the world comes from their indiscriminate, poorly thought-out placement that causes a blight on skylines.
Art Deco skyscrapers really were the best of both worlds. Wide at street level, no ugly fake greenspaces and hideous plazas around them but rather street facing facades that feel inviting and cozy, and setbacks further up to allow light to hit the street.
I personally like high rise buildings, but of course not having an over abundance of them is preferred. Great video and arguments! I've learned and become so interested in urban design from watching your guy's videos!
I agree that you shouldn't ban high rises but they have more problems than the ones you've mentioned. high rises are more expensive to live in not because of the initial cost but because maintenance is much more expensive and when people without sufficient funds live in them they cannot afford it and the building start to deteriorate. As for people forced to live further away from the city thus have longer commute, it can happen but with good city planning with mixed use zoning they will be able to work where they live and not commute every morning to the city center. I live in Barcelona and it is densely populated but the adjacent "suburb" - L'Hospitalet de Llobregat - is much denser and, like the other cities near Barcelona, has plenty of work places to offer the local residents.
great video! Imagine how much more nature and parks cities could allow when we stick to more high rise buildings, in EU so much land in big cities get wasted with only max 5 stories buildings and super expensive.
I love how you guys never take a hard-line stance on things. Outrage sells, but it doesn't educate. You are educating.
Great way to describe the quality of their content
Then, as someone not part of your crowd, why does everything folks like you do seem so preachy, as if you all think EVERYONE should be living YOUR way?
The urbanism crowd comes off as very smug and arrogant. Every single one of these channels, and cheerleading fans. You think you are the only people who exist.
@@user5214 Thanks
U-urban 🤢
I personally disagree
The key to high rises is MIXED USE.
For some reason even people who are into urbanism and similar forget this when talking about high rises, it is very possible to have highly livable and nice high rise areas if they also have the shops and restauraunts and cafes and so on that we always expect when talking about other types of high quality city living.
That is why i have always thought the "Tower in the park" concept to be abit misguided since it's basically suburbanizing high rises.
Don't get me wrong easy access to a park is fine but developers first priority should be providing tenants with easy access to shops, restaurants and so on.
Give people somewhere to get a snack they can nibble on while enjoying that park.
I've always thought why we don't use land in a mixed capacity more. For instance a giant shopping mall. ohkay cool. that's neat. but now you have this MASSIVE space on the roof doing..... what? I've always thought it would be a great idea for malls to have apartments above, or giant gardens, or both. The gardens could provide the most fresh food to the businesses down below, the people living in the building have incredible access to amenities, and being a mall there's a pretty good chance things like public transit are already routed there. The amount of wasted space on roofs DRIVES me bonkers.
@@Fenthule in fact thats where most of Vancouver's suburbs are headed to. i hope other cities follow suit.
Honestly, mixed use is the key to making every density more enjoyable.
I think Mid-Rise with 5-10 story buildings are fine. Anything above those would needed to be located in Downtown.
@@Fenthule malls with residential tower above it, and subway under it. you are describing a typical residential development in Hong Kong.
We should build high-rise with spacious flats, thick walls and garden. That would be truly livable.
Ya I don't really understand why three and four bedroom, spacious apartments aren't really a thing, especially in high rises, except for super rich people.
@@ConswaMcGaga They are here in Chicago. Just depends on the city and how expensive it is to live there
The issue is that the areas zoned for high-rise development are in places that appeal more childless adults, arterial roads with access to transit, work and bars. The quieter places with great access to parks and schools tend to be zoned for single family homes. Why would a condo developer make a building suitable for families in a place that mostly young couples or single people want to live? The answer is that we need to allow for condo is family friendly areas.
@@ConswaMcGaga I mean... it's all supply and demand, right? They definitely exist they're just crazy expensive in most big cities (only speaking from Ontario experience, where housing in general is crazy expensive)
@@gorga8618 yeah there's some condos in the West Loop that go for millions of dollars…
This is aimed at a North American viewership mostly, whereas I'm from a mid-sized to small Swiss city. But, I too ended up in a 70s high rise due to having to find a cheap enough place, on a par with my limited finances. And I have to say: I actually really, really like it up here. I'm on the 9th floor, with unusually big windows, providing me with lots of daylight and far views, yet there's zero lack of privacy. It's great. I even have a well-sized balcony.
Other parts may not be as great, like the state of the laundry rooms we all share here (five washing machines for plus minus 60 apartments, you maybe can imagine how not everyone takes care of shared spaces as much as one could... But that's rather high-level lamenting, I'd say. Overall it's definitely a good deal for me - and if I'm ever forced to leave, due to renovations or so, I'll definitely miss this perfect mixture of being in a pretty central spot, yet feeling far away from things, too. And let's not forget the views. It's like... "visual breathing"!
When I bring my binoculars to the park down below, I can watch you through those big windows
Where I live, moderately upscale (NOT even luxury) apartments and condos have a washer-dryer hookup right in the apartment. They're usually not full-size appliances, so you end up doing a couple more loads of laundry per week, but that's a good trade-off to have your own washer-dryer. Otherwise, I'm with you: I've lived in high-rise apartment buildings and liked it. The view at night was spectacular and the breeze through open windows kept you cool.
@@danieldaniels7571 Probably not for long. We had a similar issue here with someone across the way peeping into our building with binoculars. We just shot video of him doing it and gave it to the police and his building manager. Stopped instantly.
@@chicagocarless bold to assume the person in the park below has a building manager and doesn't live there in the park.
@@danieldaniels7571 Go read your original comment--you are literally talking about yourself.
My problem with the whole "tower in a park" concept is that the much-vaunted "green space" is almost always useless, dead space. It would be much better to have larger towers and to concentrate that green space into a large park so that it is large enough to be useful. This is the Manhattan approach, and it works well.
You can also really see this in the Apartment blocks in Europe (east and west) from the 50s to 70s. They have plenty of green space in between them that isn't really useable because you'd sit directly in front of the neighbours windows.
Except Manhattan has tower in the park too (see NYCHA projects).
Or like in Calgary along 7th Ave they have twinned towers at either end of a long block, and between them is a rooftop terrace over the parking structure/stores below that had trees, a pool, bbq area, quiet reading nook, it was a full on park, and got lots of visitors being a useful space.
But it would be very difficult to be able to clear enough land for a large park in already built up cities
@@aintnothingbutaheartbreak9052 Please read again my comment. The land has already been cleared for the construction of towers. I am suggesting that the placement of the towers be altered to eliminate dead "green space" and turn that into a viable park.
The type of housing inside the tall building matters too! If it’s all bachelor and 1 bedrooms, then most people won’t see high rise living as something that could be for them or people like them. We need a healthy mix of multi-bedroom units in towers.
As a Hongkonger, I like skyscraper but our city is too claustrophobic. With 40 storey buildings surrounding 7-metre wide streets, it really feels like the sun never reaches the ground sometimes.
I've visited Hong-Kong and I get exactly what you mean, it feels like another universe
This is because Hong Kong gov owns all land and artificially restricts the land for profit when they sell it. It’s ridiculous we believe Hong Kong to be this very free society when it’s actually very much controlled by government agencies to a degree more than other countries that are often considered to be “oppressive” such as russia which is actually way more free than people believe.
Unfortunately Hong Kong like other Asian cities is just very populated. They have extra wildlife space further north but it isn’t allowed to be redeveloped on plus it would be rather difficult (if not impossible) due to how mountainous it is. Much of the bustle and liveliness of Hong Kong is unlike any other city I’ve ever seen but I agree that everything feels very close together in a claustrophobic kind of way, even more so than singapore
@@raaaaaaaaaam496 selling land for private profit isn’t free. It’s subjecting your life to the market
@@uhohhotdog no one cares shut up
Anyone that hates on tower housing has never lived in one. Cause I'd 100% take tower housing over an old house with roommates. Also not to mention the views, THE VIEWS!
Also, is the title a Dr. Strangelove reference?
@Alan Fisher Yes! And the thumbnail caption is a reference to: ua-cam.com/video/7iPyz6Yqwl4/v-deo.html
who sais u gotta have roommates tho
Tower housing just seems “unsocial” imo. here in my city the 20-30 storey buildings are just to big that people won’t take care of the building and fills up with all sorts of people since they are cheap. But medium apartament buildings here that are between 3 and 8 stories high more often seems much better!
I disagree, although towers can be fun and interesting places to live. I much prefer my little house in my small town. And yes, I've lived in towers big and small in the big city. Not my thing.
Personally, high-rises being greater than human scale is why I like them. They inspire a sense of awe.
I loved living in a high rise in Chicago and I want to do it again. I love how the city sounds from more than 10 stories up, and high-floor views of Lake Michigan are breathtaking. I'm open to considering any real, practical downsides, but people who find them unliveable should speak for themselves.
I agree about the views. I always book a high floor in a high rise hotel when I visit a city. But it's always a relief to get out of the city and back home where the fields and trees are. I never visit parks in cities though. I just find them depressing. It feels fake, like a zoo. I'm glad there are people who like living in cities because they are fascinating from a technological perspective. Definitely worth visiting but I feel bad for the people who have to live there in order to make them possible. Hearing from people who actually like living in them helps alleviate my feelings of guilt about how relieved I feel to get out after visiting one.
@@youtubeuser1052 Now imagine living in Arizona.
@@youtubeuser1052 In Chicago I lived in a middle-density neighborhood full of trees and small gardens. I must admit I see where you're coming from with your perspective on parks, but for some reason the gardens of my neighbors always felt "real" to me. Some of my best memories from there are of walking outside in the spring and admiring the greenery and flowers.
@@youtubeuser1052 If you live near actual undeveloped land I can sympathize with that. A far greater majority of people in the US live in suburbia, where there might be more green, but it is just as artificial as it is on top of a skyscraper. Acres and acres of non-native monoculture grass kept flourescent green with fertilizers and pesticides, all hemmed in with highways no more than a mile apart, every single river and stream dammed and culverted. Currently I live on the edge of a city right next to farmland, which may feel idyllic to many Americans, but these are factory farms growing feed corn for factory farmed cattle. It might be prettier, but in terms of environmental impact it's not much better than any massive grey industrial building on the highway. Instead we should maximize the completely undeveloped land in the country- the nature reserves, the national parks- and we do that by moving into cities.
@@WolfSeril107 High-rise living is no more or less "natural" than any other type of residential environment. From rural singe family houses to supertalls, it all involves applied technology.
I've spent the last fifty years thinking about this issue. I've lived in a variety of urban housing. I presently live in a low-rise, very old apartment building. I like it. But I also spent years in a high-rise with a wonderful balcony view, which I enjoyed tremendously, and now miss. They are both in the same neighbourhood, and when it comes down to it, what matters is the street-level environment. The high-rise was in a dense neighbourhood with a tremendous variety of stores and institutions (libraries, churches, offices, etc.) available at street level. So I had the fabulous view and the anonymous privacy, and at the same time could step outside and be in a sidewalk cafe or a public library within minutes. A short walk brings me to lovely parks and wooded ravines. That's what makes life so pleasant in the St. Jamestown/Cabbagetown/Gay Village neighbourhoods. If I had been living in an anonymous tower surrounded by miles of parking lots out in Scarborough or North York, then tower life would have turned into an alienated nightmare. It's what happens at street level that counts. Tower life has its own pleasures and pluses, especially when there are balconies. A dense, walkable, colourful and lively downtown neighbourhood with a variety of housing is NOT harmed by a sprinkling of tall towers. They bring in the population that can support the atmospheric coffee shop or the delightful bakery or the odd-ball shop that specializes in vinyl records. And you can still have plenty of tree-lined streets and refreshing outdoor life. There is probably an ideal ratio, but that would probably vary depending on the physical layout and landforms.
I like high rises and medium rise buildings as a concept but I hate thin walls. If there is some way they can guarantee that I can live in an apartment and never EVER have to hear my neighbors, then sign me up. However, in my experience, even expensive apartments are no guarantee that I won't be up at 1AM hearing my neighbors going at it to the sound of bass-heavy music.
I feel like it wouldn't be unreasonable to require soundproofing between units, both vertically and horizontally. I mean, just using rockwool would go a long way toward that AND make the whole more fireproof AND thermally insulated
@@joranbooth5529 I agree with it should be a requirement, but I don't really see how adding rockwool between the apartments would make it more thermally insulated. You are normally more worried about the heat/cold escaping through the outside walls rather than it going between rooms in a building :P
I live ina medium density, 4-storey building in Plateau Mont-Royal. I barely hear my neighbours. Once you know what to look for, it's not very hard to knock on the walls when you're looking at an apartment and know how the sound-proofing is. The whole issue of medium density = noisy neighbours mainly comes from the fact that these buildings are old.
That's important for a lot of folks but less so for others. When there is a complex set of many different priorities and preferences, that is an argument for NOT mandating certain types of housing but keeping all varieties legal. There are always trade offs with housing, variety (and honesty about downsides) lets people work out how to manage those trade offs for themselves.
Lol this is a very high demand. Best to just be a millionaire and buy the whole floor, IMO
Funny to see you used my complex as an example of surface parking. It must've been built (late 70s) at a time with parking minimums, because there is probably 2 spots for every household. Needless to say, 2/3 of the parking lot is empty. A lot of people here commute by public transportation, since it's so close to a major LRT station, so most of those spots go unused. They could easily fit a fourth tower in those empty lots!
That's the point even in higher income suburbs all the 3 car garages and 6 car drive ways sit mostly empty because it is difficult to have more then three car.
Why should it be different in an urban area with more affordable flats.
@@paxundpeace9970 Some of those three car garages belong to people with "children" who are old enough to drive and have their own cars. And even with only two cars, it may be difficult to fit them into a two car garage if someone has a hobby like woodworking, metalworking, electronics, or anything else where they accumulate a lot of tools and materials. Someone I knew when I was a kid had a job where he bought used x-ray equipment, repaired it and resold it. Half of his two car garage was taken up by his tools. This was a side business and wouldn't have made any money if he had needed to rent a workshop. It was only possible because he had skills and enough space to use those skills.
@@youtubeuser1052 that's a lot of special pleading man. Are you really arguing that we should enact a province-wide policy that impacts everyone's housing + commute just because someone might have a hobby plus kids?
@@ChasmChaos If the current policy forbids garages, then yes I'd say enact a policy that allows people who want garages to be able to buy homes with them. You did say "province-wide", right? If you'd asked "should we enact a city-wide policy that mandates all downtown studio apartments must have a garage then I'd say no. I don't know exactly what a providence is in your country (or even what country you're posting from) but it sounds big. Though I do seem to recall from the one time I visited Tokyo that there were an awful lot of homes with garages despite the high population density. Tokyo felt like a three dimensional ant farm, but I remember thinking that there were a lot of beautiful houses packed in a tiny space and a lot of them seemed to have at least private parking and some had fully enclosed garages. BTW the last part of your post sounds like having a hobby and kids is an edge case. I don't think I'd want to live somewhere that having a hobby and kids is an unusual thing. Not sure if you meant to imply it's unusual to have both.
@@paxundpeace9970 My experience in the suburbs is most garages are used for extra storage, not parking vehicles.
« That’s a trade off that should be their decision »
- is a great summary and the video’s strongest point!
I like both in a visual, urban sense. For my personal preference I prefer to live in a walkup where I can walk up and down the stairs every day (on the second to fourth stories). I don’t like elevators, I have lived in highrises but I live on the 3rd or 4th floor and take the stairs.
I like stairs as well, but disabled people commented here that low-rises lack elevators which they need.
Well, that problem can be solved by getting the disabled to live at the bottom (hope that doesn't sound offensive)or installing elevators in all apartment blocks.
@@موسى_7 That is how many buildings seem to be designed, as in the past I’ve noticed some hotels have more rooms designated as accessible on the ground floor. It especially smooths out the experience for folks who use something other than a wheelchair (like a walker) or are more limited by energy or balance than motor function.
I also don’t really like elevators (and actually kind of enjoy walking up a couple flights of stairs) but I’d like an elevator option for situations like when I twisted my ankle a couple years ago or when my mom who has a bad knee comes to visit.
Yeah usually the bottom floors of a high rise are cheaper
Elevators are a necessity. Yes, I could use the stairs if I'm only on the 3rd or 4th floor, but I don't want to have to carry things like groceries or furniture up the stairs.
Then again if I'm living in a tower, im going on the 10th floor or above.
One thing I almost never see mentioned is 10-15 story height flats, they're much denser than 3-6 story flats, yet they don't require as much free space around them.
My mother owns a fairly affordable flat that she bought because of her work back when she was young. The building is 13 stories high, with 3 2-bedroom units on every floor. There are three of this flats on the lot (one has 4 1-bedroom and another has 2 3-bedroom units on each floor), yet they are all roughly the same size and take up around 65% of the land they sit on. The remaining 35% is mostly reserved for a pleasent park in between, since all the parking can be fit on either the ground floor (that is excluding the street front, which has stores), or the level underneath.
I think this is also something for many cities to think about. The reason I went into so much detail is because I want to demonstrate the achievableness and versatility of such a model.
I live in the Taipei area on the 10th floor, and what makes my neighborhood lively is what happens on the street every day. We have so many foodstands and ground level shops in the arcade. There's always a new drink shop opening with a weird new visual style, and people are always shopping at the market.
I'm a big-city tall-tower person. Love the views, love the amenities, love the almost chore-free lifestyle.
I went from living in a very low-density suburb to the 6th floor of a seven-story dorm building when I went to college, and I loved it. Not that it was "high-rise" per-se, but the view was spectacular to me and it gave me a similar feeling to the comfy seclusion of being high-up in a tree like a treehouse. I could see how it might get a bit dizzying at true high-rise levels but I don't really understand people's seeming obsession with being close to the ground. We should allow development for all preferences and budgets.
As you guys mentioned, so much of the criticism of towers seems to come from the subjective aesthetic preference for "traditional" architecture. Many people just hate the ~look~ of "glass boxes" (as I so often see it phrased). But what so many people overlook, and what you guys get at, is that the "aesthetics" of traditional architecture often (and increasingly) do not produce the spaces people actually want to ~live~ in. Traditional architecture is nice to look at, but often provides significantly less natural light and significantly less usable floor space for a given footprint. As someone who has lived in traditional, "picturesque" mid-rise buildings ~and~ in "high"-rises in both DC and Manhattan (with DC being roughly 14 stories), I can say, definitively, that the high-rises were significantly more enjoyable living spaces. More light, more space, cheaper, and-what this video overlooks-more amenities (doorman, package/mail service, gym, ground-floor retail, trash service, etc.).
So, even beyond the cost element, when cities block the construction of towers, they're also forcing residents to accept worse material living conditions purely to satisfy the aesthetic concerns of individuals who won't even live in those buildings in the first place. It's completely selfish and counterproductive toward the goal of making your city more livable.
So many fallacies in one comment, it's amazing how myths get propagated by simply not questioning them. Glass boxes are overall bad, period, this is not a matter of aesthetics, but concrete environmental and physiological and psychological proof. t The "aesthetics" of traditional architecture aren't impeding the production the spaces people actually want to ~live~ in, bad designers and planners are. Compare a 1980's and 90's nyc residential tower with copy pasted modernist designs, low ceilings and varandas no one uses, to a RAMSA tower.
It's also selfish to forced everyone else to live with ugly towers, that hubris is so anglo it hurts. The city is for everyone, by making it more livable you have to have more housing but also beauty.
I'd love a cheap tower rental with a south-facing balcony, as long as I can take the stairs every day and get quads the size of a pumpkin. I love the look of tall apartment buildings all around, and if it means more continuous green space in the city, that's a huge win. Reducing traffic is much more of an issue for me
Great point. Stairs are a great workout. Something I missed sorely when I was in (real) London.
At my age and spread of arthritis, I'm quite happy to take the elevator.
You say that now. I did once, too. And then you realize how much concrete dust and stale air there is in a high-rise stairwell. And then you don't.
@@chicagocarless concrete dust? Are you sure it's not regular dust?
@@Maranville I'm sure it's both.
What's maddening about talking about housing is people take their own preferences, and counter discussion topics with those. It's like they can't imagine that housing isn't built for only them.
Its like they don't realize that if you allow all housing types to exist then you have less competition over the market you want to be in.
Some people want to live in a cabin in the woods where the closest neighbors are a mile away, if this was the only housing available in the country we wouldn't fit and they would be ungodly expensive. This is basically why the suburbs in California are so expensive, they are our of space for more homes and won't build anything more dense to free up the markets and end the shortage, which would massively help with the homelessness crisis that is a stain on their state/cities. (The homeless aren't inherently bad people, but nobody should have to live like that and desperate people do bad things. Cities with large homeless populations should be ashamed of not addressing the root of the problem)
Yeah, people get very dogmatic, and often try to impose their worldview. The worst offenders are they ones who don't even realize they're doing it.
Wow. Y’all are truly gifted at making a cogent argument. Keep it up!
I want to point out that while many tall buildings are not nice to look at, many can be. Chicago is an example of a city with very attractive and even historical and classically styled skyscrapers (the Wriggley building, Tribune tower, the London House). Because of this, Chicago is one of the most affordable metros in the US and Canada. It is the 3rd largest metro area between the US and Canada, yet a one bedroom apartment in the most expensive neighborhood in Chicago can be had in a tower for $1,600 per month in rent. The reason is, lots of towers, but with only truly remarkable and pleasing to look at buildings being built.
Very relatable here in Brisbane, Australia. There are frequently developments proposed that are high (13+ storeys), often higher than the current city plan suggests. People get very angry about it, and particularly fearful that it will lead to "carmageddon". The mindset perplexes me, particularly when such developments are usually suggested close to train stations and bus rapid transit stations (busways as we call them), and quite close to the inner city. The result is we have endless sprawl, and new satellite developments with low density detached housing 30-40km outside the city, not near train lines, and then we wonder why the arterial roads into the city are a congestion nightmare, and the outer suburb train station carparks are overwhelmed. Then we end up with public money being spent building multi level commuter carparks at these outer train stations, at a cost of construction of up to $100,000 per car space.
Of course, the decision makers are elected representatives, and they fear public backlash, so they often make bad decisions on the back of populism. It's an endless cycle, and I really don't know how to change people's perceptions.
And, for full disclosure, I live in a single family detached home about 15km from the city centre. My suburb is zoned in such a way to prevent larger medium or high density developments other than townhouses. I think that's wrong, but there's no appetite to change it. I get around most places by bike, and there's not-horrible public transport by bus, but I am constantly amazed by people in my community complaining about driving - made worse by those developments way on the outskirts pushing more and more cars through our neighbourhood. And that's leading to the State and Federal Government spending $244 million to duplicate the motorway bridge, as the first stage of widening the motorway to 6 or maybe even 8 lanes... The cycle continues.
ua-cam.com/video/IVEjSimBWzM/v-deo.html
There’s also the (unfortunate) bad rep that new high rises have had in Australia due to some well publicised stories about poor construction quality (particularly in Sydney, e.g. Opal Towers, Mascot Towers).
From the people I’ve spoken to about home purchases (mostly younger home buyers) there has been a reluctance to buy new apartments due to the lack of confidence in their long term integrity.
@@vincentchan4576 And the crappy street scapes. Plonk the buildings on and just have street parking and stroads 🤦
I love medium-density, but they are ALWAYS not wheelchair accessible. I’m in a wheelchair and can never live in mid rise buildings… I wish they’d make many accessible for the millions of us who need it.
This is a great discussion and highlights the importance of preference. Apparently, I hold the opposite of most common views. I want to live on a very high floor because I need the view. I'm inspired when I stand on street level and see tall buildings all around me. I prefer balconies on very high floors that are exposed to the weather patterns up higher (and aren't exposed to noise and thieves from the street). I feel claustrophobic when every building is a uniform 3-4 stories because there's nothing that draws my eyes away to the distance (even if that distance is up).
I hold the complete opposite view of yours which is also uncommon.
I was raised in farm country and would prefer to have a home on a back country road were i never feel the need to lock my doors and sleep on the second floor. I find it disorienting when buildings dwarf the trees around them and generally find cities claustrophobic and intimidating.
Obviously we need to let housing on the full spectrum of massive towers to homes that have no neighbors for as far as you can see be built so everyone can live where they want and not compete for it with people who hate that lifestyle.
@@jasonreed7522 Especially on back country roads I would lock my door and sleep on the second floor (and I grew up in a very small village in the middle of nowhere). But I would lock my door in a city as well.
What is it about not locking doors anyway? It's not like it's that inconvenient to make sure your door is locked. That doesn't mean I'm constantly afraid or anything.
@@jasonreed7522 My grandpa lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere and never locked his doors until one night someone stole his tools and used them to steal the gas from his truck...you can get crime anywhere.
By the way, I think the street-facing part of tall buildings makes a huge difference. There's a building in my city which, for years, I thought was a regular mid-rise building with businesses on the ground floor, until one day I looked up and it turned out there's a >10-storey tower on top of it!
I feel that one solution could be replacing excessive zoning with a “gentle density” type zoning. Basically a single family neighborhood could allow rowhouses, multiplexes, and apartments up to a certain level. Gradually as the average height of the neighborhood gets taller individual buildings can be built even taller maybe with only set back and street width limiting a buildings true maximum height.
I’m not saying this is ideal but it may be a more palpable solution that doesn’t necessarily emphasize bias towards one type of housing but is simply a way of rezoning in response to demand. It could also quell some of the very widespread (justified or not) arguments that allowing too much housing development at one time leads to gentrification
That sounds like Strong Town's approach of allowing the next increment/intensity of development everywhere.
This sounds especially promising as usually the next step denser of development doesn't stand out to the existing neighborhood. A duplex just looks like a large single family home and only stands out if your in one of the suburban cookie cutter hellscapes where only the numbers on the mailbox can identify your house from the crowd.
Maybe say you can't be more than 3 stories taller than you neighborhood average, or adjust for the zone so its stricter in residential areas but in the core with towers the sky's the limit. (Metaphorically speaking)
It is a good concept, especially with improved transit. Focus denser and taller structures by the transit stations
Great vid as always. I will admit that living in a high rise in Ottawa, I do feel a little isolated sometimes. Taking the elevator down 20 stories, including dressing up in winter creates just enough of an inconvenience that I'll procrastinate going outside sometimes. I still like my apartment overall. But I noticed after living there for over 5 years, that sometimes the feeling of isolation can creep up.
Also, the walls between me and my neighbours is absurdly thin and I can hear them clearly having a conversation on the phone.
Another awesome video. Too often people gloss over the fact that mid-rise buildings are just not that financially feasible in certain locations.
Actually that point's not lost in most of the more popular "urbanist" videos I've came across on YT. Those videos point out that restrictive zoning laws favoring single-family homes is the main reason developers need to build up as land for multiple dwellings is so scare (thus pricing out building middle housing). The argument tend less to be about "towers are bad" and more about revising zoning to have more viable options for people at different income levels and/or life status.
tower enjoyer here, try your favorite music and watching the city at night while sitting on a windowsill.
I don't get this desire so many have to ban or disregard various types of housing. All housing types come with their pros and cons and and it is good to have a wide selection of them all. Personally I love living in tall buildings and the way they look, but I understand that not everyone feels as I do. The only housing type I dislike would be large suburbs, but I do understand why many people are drawn to them and I would never dream of banning such developments outright (even if they are economically and environmentally obscenely inefficient). However, as the market has been biased in favor of such housing for so long, I don't think it is unreasonable to restrict it for a while to allow other types to catch up in supply. Funny enough, with lighter restrictions overall, I have a feeling that the market would gradually find the correct balance as development will naturally cater to actual demand (though it would be nice to see some cultural shift towards more efficient development models as we do live in a finite world).
I fully agree with all of this, except i like to live in the country well away from cities and people. Which is why I support denser development options so the suburbs don't expand ever outward into rural spaces that need to stay rural, both as a food source and as important nature reserves.
The only housing that should be banned are all the idiots on the barrier islands, those are sandbars barely a few meters/yards above high tide and serve the vital function of taking the brunt of the oceans wrath before it reaches the mainland. Talk about an inefficient place to live, that asking every storm and hurricane to try and wash away your mansion costing millions in property damage every storm on islands that should be a nature preserve for the seabirds. (Mini rant over)
@@jasonreed7522 Funny enough, I was exploring google earth the other day and looking at some of those sandbars. The same thoughts crossed my mind... why was this land allowed to be developed in such a way? It really shows how messed up our priorities as a civilization actually are.
One of the main things I dislike about the suburbs is how they pretend to be rural while leaching city resources, usually at the cost of either those living in denser parts of the city or from higher levels of government. That lack of awareness of suburbanites as to how much their lifestyle is subsidized is astonishing. Unlike with those living an actual rural lifestyle who are mostly living off of their own resources... Well usually... A lot of the farmers here in Alberta seem to be blissfully unaware of how much all those rural paved roads cost to build and how much it saves them in vehicle maintenance...
@@AbsolutePixelMaster i think the rural subsidization in the form of infrastructure payed for by State taxes (which are obviously going to be primarily from rich cities) is reasonable because cities are inherently dependent on those farmers for food because currently cities can't economically feed themselves within their borders.
Obviously people will always gripe about us vs them, but everyone is way more dependent on eachother than they want to admit. Generally cities will have the best doctors and be centers of "intelectual industry" that the rural people need, last time i checked farmers didn't build the internet. And Rural regions provide raw resources (LA was built on an oil field so exceptions), food, and cheap land for high footprint activities like power plants and refinaries.
Suburbs exist mainly so people can have the benefits of the city but have a quiter place to raise a family. This isn't inherently bad, its just 99% of suburbs in the USA and Canada are cookie cutter car dependent blights on the land.
And i will say one step more rural than rural and just as important are Wilderness areas, be it national parks, undesirable land (tundra and taiga of the far North), or just protected but inhabited (the Adirondack Park in NY is the largest state park and a bunch of people live their but Walmart is forbidden from moving in). Wilderness areas serve the roll of preventing the biosphere from collapsing and as buffers for weather (like barrier islands, or mountain wetlands reducing flood intensity).
@@jasonreed7522 I do agree with you, and in fact I almost posted a bit about how it probably comes full circle resulting in lower food prices for myself. I changed my mind last minute only because I remembered that we actually import most of our food here from the USA and BC. But it is true, we are all interdependent and it is much harder to find fault with farmers as they do provide an essential service. However, when it comes to the idea of wanting a quiet place to raise a family as defense of excessive suburbs... well that is where I struggle. Having been raised in the suburbs I remember being extremely isolated an anti-social. Additionally there are countless studies coming out showing that kids raised in suburbs often have considerably weaker social skills as well as short combining in many other areas. And that doesn't even begin to cover all the issue of segregation brought about by suburbs... So although it is a common belief that the suburbs are the ideal place to raise a family, the data says otherwise. Sorry about the brief reply, I would love to talk in more detail but I have to rush to class!
If a developer only has a plot of a certain size to work with, it makes sense to allow them to use the space as effectively as possible (within reason). However when planning on a larger scale, having lots of high-rises placed close together blocks out the sun and makes it so apartments on the lower floors, as well as streets and gardens/parks, don't get any sunlight at all. This is another reason why high-rise residential buildings tend to be spaced farther apart than mid-rise.
*Hong Kong and Macau:*
What is this sunlight and space you speak of?
I lived in a tall-ish tower (only 7 stories) for a while. It wasn't bad at all, mostly because it was a 1 mile commute to work with lots of parkland nearby. The only real downside was all the car parking about, but I was part of that problem as a car owner so I couldn't get too mad about it.
Taller buildings are also much more expensive to maintain vs mid-rise. Usually 30-40 year buildings requite serious rehaul and issue is especially with condominiums nobody is paying that upkeep.
Yeah, that is the real downside for me. As with most things, no one thinks about the maintenance. No one thinks about the longterm.
I'm really lucky to live in Quebec where there's suburbs like st.lambert where there are midrise, highrise, townhouses, and single lot homes all in the same neighborhood within walking distance of the city centre and the train station that leads downtown. Cities should really adopt this model
High rises can definitely be good as long as they're not "towers in a park" and real thought is given to how the building interfaces with the street and neighborhood.
I support mixed density. Put a tower or two in a neighbourhood. It lets the people in the towers actually have a view and to not overwhelm the neighbourhood.
Also, I wish my balcony was higher up. It’s low enough it doesn’t feel properly private to me.
Absolutely love this video! Originally European but raised in NYC so im a huge fan of highrises myself and the one thing I can never agree with all these "more walkable city' folk is limiting to only mid-rise buildings. Thanks for showing arguments for the other side. My friends and I never found the social isolation part or "human scale" part of high rises true. We live in NYC so there is so much to do thanks to A LOT OF people being able to live next to everything and every block having 25 different commercial spaces. I don't agree with the sentiment "walkable city" = "mid rise". The best part about highrises are the options, like you said you can CHOOSE to live in the lower floors, I have never in my life had to worry about elevators, this argument doesn't make sense to me and generally lower floors = cheaper rent too.
Obviously, I also agree mid rise buildings should 100% be a thing and be way more common for people who want that option. Not every city needs to be a Manhattan but I believe we all deserve options.
I really appreciate this video!
I'm personally a fan of "medium-density", "mixed-use" design as well... It's very difficult to achieve a sustainable, connected neighbourhood (at least in the context of an urban area) otherwise.
Sucks that it's actually illegal to build new mixed-use neighborhoods and medium-density housing in the US.
did u watch the video?
I don't agree with this sentiment at all being from NYC. Medium density should not be the upper limit, it should be a viable one but high rises offer plenty of connectiveness especially in Manhattan which each neighborhood as its own culture and charm. But I also agree not every city needs to be a Manhattan. There should be options just like anything.
@@ThisIsntmyrealnameGoogle Oh yeah 100% there's something beautiful about the sheer scale of places like Manhattan. But i can't help but feel like everyday life is ideal for so many more people if more people can be distributed evenly across a city
@@thecadeaujournals3980 Oh for sure brother! Like I said I agree NOT every place, and certainly not most places SHOULD be like Manhattan unless theres a huge demand there. I just think there shouldnt be any hard rule limiting that possibility in the future for cities. The cost of living in NYC and Chicago is getting higher and higher since there really aren't many options for those of us who like these kind of massive scales cities. And while I agree there certainly doesn't need to be a TON of them it would be nice having a few options here and there once in a while, but also having medium density for the majority of people who also prefer that. And hey even low density once in a while for those who actually like the American suburbs lmfao
In my experience, the 30 second elevator ride is wildly optimistic. In the highrise I used to live in going from street level to inside my appartment was easily 5 minutes. If you need multiple trips that really adds up.
Especially with anti-covid measures reducing the car capacity from 12 to 2.
Five minutes? Were they using hamsters to power the elevator? I can't imagine such slow service.
@@x--. walk from the front door to the elevator. Wait for the elevator. Ride the elevator. Walk the 100m from the elevator to the front door.
@@matthijspw hey man. I know the feeling but for different reasons. Lived on the 4th floor, far from single elevator to parking garage (two elevators, only one to lower parking) and it was the slowest slowest slowest elevator. Easily 5 min door to door. Just surprised it's not better in bigger byildings
@@x--. The elevators *are faster* in bigger buildings. But they also have more distance to travel and more people using them.
i'll never understand how people can find skyscrapers ugly. to me theyre truly astonishing
Most of them are, look at São Paulo or Tokyo for example, you can hand pick the nice highrises, most are ugly or plain depressing.
Incredibly lucid, perfect video. Congrats!
I personally love tall buildings with human scale no setbacks, as they used to do here in Brazil before the 70s. Loving cities, I definitely love being in the middle of a buildings canyon, I feel engrossed and part of the City.
There's this part of my city that is mostly full of 8 to 14 storey tall towers of flats that, if it weren't for factors unrelated to the building sizes, would be one of, if not the best place in town to live and do nearly everything in.
Unsurprisingly, as with most good neighbourhoods, it was planned around public transit. More specifically, it was originally built as a 19th century tram suburb.
From the 3 charts shown, it looks like the 7-storey building (is that the same as 5-over-2?) is optimal in all 3 - in the 3rd obviously, it's got the lowest cost per unit, but in the other 2, it represents (among the 3 data points shown) the point of diminishing returns on both curves. Of course, this is very limited data, but it makes sense to me.
I *want* to live in a building that's tall enough to justify at least one elevator, for ADA (USA) accessibility, and for moving furniture & big appliances & such in & out. And the odd high-rise with a not-too-slender aspect ratio is a good thing to have around too.
Most importantly, there has to be enough ground-level business/commercial stuff built into the neighborhood to make it truly walkable, and ubiquitous mass transit, walking, bicycling &c. so no one needs or wants a car.
The ideal city should not need private cars and would ban them in the core.
Obviously not everywhere can ditch the car, this morning i was seeing where i could go using google maps and lets just say that dear god America's trains suck. My curiosity was to see if i could take a train close enough home on holidays that my family could pick me up, i can drive it in 6-7 hours, a train takes 18 and the closest station was 3 hours away from my hometown. I checked Hartford to Syracuse (close enough to me and some of my friends, 4 and a bit by car, 8 hours by train). Needless to say i will be stuck driving for a while yet.
If the train is a comparable time i would try it, because that saves all the wear on the car and stress of bad drivers and risk of zoning out (highway driving is mind numbingly boring right until someone tries to kill you, i would much prefer a train).
Interestingly, Amtrack has 1 route from DC to Orlando Florida that lets you take your car with you, something i advocate as a way to help get Americans on the train as this solves the last mile problem, especially when visiting rural locations. (Still terrible to bring cars into cities)
interestingly I read that 7 storeys is the worst. because 6 storeys you can build with wood. anything above that, it's concrete which adds a big overhead cost, and they need to build a lot higher to justify it. that is why you always see either 3-5 or 15+ and not much in between.
@@pr0wnageify that *is* interesting. I wonder why those charts came out the way they did then. Maybe if there were more than three data points on the chart, and more than three areas charted, it would present a clearer picture.
@@jasonreed7522 Major European cities effectively do this. It's insanely expensive driving a car in zone 1 London, for instance, due to a bunch of pollution fees.
Americans and Canadians really need to travel to European cities and try living there (actually living + commuting, not just going to the tourist areas). In London, getting from point A to B is a matter of a 5-15 minute walk and taking a couple of trains/buses. To an American, this probably sounds awful, but it's unbelievable how much your health improves when you get 20-30 minutes of walks every day by just commuting.
Densification + public transport means you are never more than 30-45 minutes away from work, parks, museums, woodlands, schools, hospitals, shopping centers and anything else you may need. And all you gotta do is walk for a bit and get on a train. It doesn't matter if you live in a million pound mansion or subsidized housing. I have never felt the same level of freedom in any other city.
@@ChasmChaos i think most of America's problems are best described as "Chicken or the Egg" problems and "Self fulfilling prophecies".
Example: trains suck because nobody uses them, and nobody uses them because they suck.
Or Walk ability: people drive from the suburbs because they don't feel safe walking/biking/taking transit, and the reason it doesn't feel safe is that car suburbs cause many social issues including housing shortages resulting in more street homeless and depressed neighborhoods that nobody wants to be in unprotected by a steel car.
Not using this as any sort of excuse for the problems, just how they got their and showing how hard it can be to fix them.
And i think your right about needing to expose Americans to other lifestyles as a way to increase public buy in to these objectively better systems. Or atleast the idea of having a nice multipurpose trail from downtown out into residential areas where you could enjoy walking the dog or a 10min bike to the park. (My tiny rural hometown has a "bike path" (motor vehicle banned path) that is just a 5km loop around a golf course with 2 points of entry that gets all sorts of use as a multipurpose path, now imagine if that actually connected places and had sidewalks with lights to cross streets. But instead we drive to the bike path, and i bet that sounds awful to anyone who watches this channel)
They need to add a mail room for us delivery drivers! That's the only bad thing about apartment / high rises, takes forever to go to each door for deliveries!
I've been agreeing more than I thought I would, great arguments! I'll add to that that mixing medium and high density can give a unique charater to a neighborhood. Montreal is still a good exemple there, if you compare a really medium-density neighborhood like Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to something mixing high and low density like Milton Parc. They share some architecture styles but the presence of tall building clearly differenciate both of them.
Personally, I love the podium+tower model that’s so common here in Hong Kong. (The podium structure is often a mall, but they suit the climate here, providing air conditioned spaces to hang out during the hot and humid summers.) the podiums and plethora of public parks provide ample green space, the tall towers reduce traffic noise and improve ventilation, and they’re usually atop or near metro or bus stations. As for the social aspect, it is quite common for families to occupy flats in the same towers or complexes. My neighbors chat just as often in the tower lobby as they would at the post box in, say, Europe.
And while the tower+podium model is associated with expensive developments, public-housing towers are also very common here, offering the very same benefits, though usually further from the town centers.
In Paris a interesting discussion is currently happening that they are in need for more space and are weighting in to remove hight limits for parts of city.
Currently the biggest area in Paris without strict high limit is La defense and commercial central business district distant to the urban core.
The last point is shaky. LA has lots of demand and either A) single family homes or B) tall towers and few in between. It has tall towers because there’s a restriction on supply
But even somewhere like Buffalo which has decreasing demand for housing every year still has a similar city scape. This is because of restrictions on supply not because of high demand.
In Toronto the architecture of the condo towers has gotten much better in recent years, including the street level. Some even retain and repair dilapidated historic structures at the base.
There's a tower near me that has some townhouse entrances. I kind of wish I got one of those now because I like to take my bike in and out quickly, instead of taking it in the elevator. I end up walking more instead of biking because there is some hassle (partly because there are two places where there are doors that you have to hold to keep open, which is awkward with a bike.) I enjoy being up high through as well. Like you said: the views. Also for the light, I feel like I can have my shades open and generally speaking, people can't see me very well (unless they're really trying; in which case, that's their problem not mine).
Love the video! I'll add that we should love slab-like towers too (wide but thin). Those make multiple bedrooms far more affordable, vs. the 30-meter square floorplates we get in my city, which make multiple bedrooms uneconomical.
One problem with high rises as a solution to home ownership is that if you own less of the land, you have a depreciating asset that will eventually need to be torn down - especially the way they're built now. This doesn't really solve the poverty cycle and you might be better off renting and putting your money into ETFs (or whatever your financial advisor tells you to).
If I could learn to stop worrying I could probably function normally in society. Society Anxiety, as well as other forms of Anxiety, make being packed together with other people terrifying. That being said I don't oppose it just because living like that is detrimental to my sanity, I just live in the country where it takes 20 minutes to walk to town. And I have lived in cities breifly and even took the bus for almost a year. Very unpleasant but maybe would have been livable if I wasn't also having a breakdown and failing out of College.
Even if you don't want to live in a tower, it still benefits you, because it will increase housing supply, driving down rent in other buildings nearby, even ones on the ground. The only people who lose are scalpers over invested in the real estate bubble.
I might have missed it, but the graphs in the middle about cost per unit also don't include the public costs to build/maintain infrastructure. These costs do get passed on to residents, albeit likely not in an equitable fashion.
I rewatch your videos just for the amazing footage
This was a very nuanced, balanced take on the issue
Good point that needs to be made, to stop people from trading one strict orthodoxy for another
Yeah I'm a mid rise fan myself, but I've talked extensively with people who love higher rises and I get it, it definitely has its place
I personally like living higher up, the breeze is fresher so the house is more confortable (I live in tropics)
One thing towers often miss out on is quality bicycle parking, you're basically required to have your bike in your unit or its going to get stolen. They really should build actually secure bicycle stratagem in buildings to cut down on the amount of parking needed.
I love your videos! Bonne saint Valentin ❤️
This is a very interesting video. Big boom of new townhomes in BC's Lower Mainland, away from downtown, is clearly visible. Once you have access to land outside your own front door, it's hard to go for an appartment, unless necessary. Thanks for the video! Greetings from the West Coast! 😊
Excellent analyses and this debate can really go way longer. However one key element that often seems to be forgotten is that designing "tall" or "wide" should reflect the vision that one city has for itself as socio-economic unit. Flexible conceptual plan that can be projected on data for the at least the upcoming 50 to 100 years. There is often a feeling that, though we have great capabilities for statistics, we still design somehow in "ad-hoc" manner. There are plenty expectations of course but the general trends is still this feeling. (personally speaking.)
Good video and thank you for using the term "English North America". I don't know if you came up with that or not but it's the perfect term. Like it's the perfect short way of saying the USA and Canada. North America is close but Mexico usually isn't being considered so it's not factually correct. I love this term, "English North America".
Well it also excludes Quebec, which I thought was the main point
@@kanucks9 Oh darn. I guess your kind of right. Shoot. Quebec does have way better zoning laws. But it feels weird to talk about two big countries and excluding one big chunk of one of those countries. Hmmm. I just wanted a good way to talk about both countries but yeah it does kind of exclude Qubec which works for this example but not when you just want to talk about both countries in general.
@@jonathanwilkinson4299 I feel like if you want to exclude Quebec (and Montreal specifically) for that reason you'd also have to exclude the handful of dense mixed-use US cities like NYC.
@@georgedaole-wellman3950 I don't want to exclude any parts of the USA or Canada. But when you say english speaking it kind of excludes Quebec. I just want a good term that talks about both USA and Canada.
@@jonathanwilkinson4299 "Canadusa"
I'd be interested to know what the power consumption of low - up to 4/5 stories - as opposed to tower. With heat pumps and solar, the low/med rise should have v low grid demand, whereas the tower will always have major grid usage
I think the better metric would be grid demand per resident. While more units will necessarily use more power, I might wager that high rises might out-compete lower rises in terms of energy use per tenant. It's not as though if the high rises disappeared, the people who live in and consume energy/water/etc. just disappear too. Arguably their consumption in different housing types might greatly exceed that as residents of a high rise (consider all the communal amenities that become individuated in other scenarios). Many new buildings are built to LEED gold and platinum standards, which include stringent energy and water efficiency standards.
if a city could coordinate development effectively enough to make smooth curves out of cityscapes, rising and falling smooth gradients between medium and high rise building, you could get a lot of aesthetic value while keeping variety and localised density. but eh, private land development doesn't really lend itself to big long term projects like that.
Maybe though you could have zones of decreasing height maximums though. And you’d atleast get some kind of gradient with it
Did you know Montréal's skyline tries to match the silhouette of Mont-Royal. The downtown area is built down of the mount This is best experienced from a view from outside the city, I recommend it from the top of neighbouring Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Demand more from your city , it is possible! :)
Tall buildings and even skyscrapers can be quite beautiful, see the woolworth building or the empire state building. As for height limit laws, i think a dynamic height limit would solve a lot of problems people have. For example calculate the average building height of a neighbourhood or the population per square kilometer and set the height limit based on that. That way no one can plop a skyscraper next to single family homes, but the city can grow higher when needed as the height limit gradually increases together with its population.
Visited Vancouver twice, find the development style extremely stark and unpleasant, much prefer the dense parts of san Francisco that are mostly 3-5 stories with some tall towers mixed in
I kind of think of 8 stories as reasonable ground level density. I'm writing this from the 3rd floor (counting ground as 0th) of a European city building that has a 7th floor. It's where our housing cooperative's sauna is :D
7:40 tree canopies. It’s as simple as that. If trees hide away the 7th+ floors, it feels like it’s only 6 stories tall
There is also the concept of the vertical village. Meaning, you do a high rise, but you Integrate it in a way that it fosters community within the building.
As a tower-dweller, I appreciate this!
I really like how realistic your arguments are
Inserted joke: "Don't forget to hike upstairs and subscribe."
Don't forget to let people live where they want.
Some of us like living in towers. I do and I absolutely love it. I have lived in a two story apartment building, a 10 story apartment building, and an 18 story building. The 18 story building is easily my favorite.
I live almost 30 stories off the ground. Much prefer it to ground level. The view is great. Always something interesting to look at. On a clear day, i can see all the way to Niagara falls from Toronto
First time watching one of your videos, and mid way through the video I switched AirPods and it switched from the girl to the guys voice. Took me back for a second lol
Another benefit for building taller mixed use buildings in the US is that it makes individual units in them easier to finance. Fannie Mae limits the non-residential usage to 35% in condos and co-ops and limits single entity-ownership to only 2 units for 5-20 units but increase to 20% for buildings with 21 or more units. We can't build affordable walkable neighborhoods if low and middle income people can't qualify for adorable financing.
For me I don't hate towers, but when they're surrounded by low density car dependent sprawl I wince a bit at the fact that you could have had a middle density human scale suburb or town. It really hits home when I go back home and to think how much better that town could have been.
Would have liked to see discussion of the climate impact of lots of concrete. I say let the market decide, more or less, but it is a credible concern.
This is such a clear means of gentrification in my area. As the suburb villages around my city are their own municipalities, they get final say in things like building height limits. As this city is one of the cities that has seen the highest rate of growth over the past decades, there is a massive housing shortage. To get an affordable rental apartment in the city there is a waiting list of about 15 years. If you go onto the much less regulated private market, you're looking at rents that are some of the highest in the country expressed in euro per square metre.
The villages around the city want to stay low density at almost any cost. So most of them have implemented regulations which restrict building height to 3 or 4 floors. Where they used to be as high as 7. In order to try and keep up with demand for housing, my city has raised the maximum build height from 16 to 25 floors. And developers are actively pushing for 30+ floors. There just isn't a choice, the demand exceeds supply so much that these giant towers are simply the only solution.
But there is a catch. In order to build these giant apartment complexes, the developers are required to reserve the ground floor and first floor for small businesses and shops. The building needs to provide ample parking for itself, so as to not increase the local parking pressure. All of which must be provided underground, surface parking is just straight up not allowed. Buildings above a certain population estimate must provide infrastructure for a bus stop nearby.
The problems of freighting are really difficult in buildings more than 6 stories; the actual costs are much higher than they seem and the dangers are significant, as insulation standards increase the costs become very prohibitive and if OIL based insulation is used you end up with GRENFELL mass manslaughter.
If taller buildings are much more expensive, why do they get built? Presumably developers (private and public) don't want to spend money unnecessarily.
@@OhTheUrbanity They aren't well insulated.
if we tried to do them to high standards you would see the problem.
I'm not saying we cannot do it; only you have to factor in ALL the costs including a fire department SPECIFICALLY EQUIPT to deal with it otherwise you are just gambling peoples lives.
This video changed the way I think about towers... I live in a late 1800s 3 plex in Montreal and have always felt that these are the types of buildings that make a city beautiful. This video makes the great point that 1) it is really eye level where the beauty should be focused and 2) people's desire for a low skyline does not trump others' ability to have affordable housing. Kudos!
I've always been very defensive about high-rise building in the past but seeing this video changed my mind!! (If those buildings do reduce the price of appartement and not just add luxury ones like I've seen unfortunately too many times).
One thing I did not see y'all discuss is the environmental impacts of tall buildings vs mid-rise buildings. I have heard both sides but the general consensus seems to be that mid-rise is much more sustainable/environmentally friendly.
PS: Loved your video though :)
My brain was so soothed when you said Montreal correctly
So well said. It's so easy to avoid high-rise buildings if you want! Even in NYC the vast majority of the city is low-rise neighborhoods, and the vast majority of time is spent in one's own neighborhood. How are you going to have a strong opinion about outlawing buildings you only have to walk by occasionally or see on the horizon?
An issue fire departments and emergency services here have been raising is response times. Outcomes for people on upper floors are measurably worse because it takes longer for paramedics to reach them. This is a hidden danger of dense infill development.
Imagine my surprise when you show the Alta Vista Towers in Ottawa, where I last lived before I moved out of the city. So much parking lot. :P On the plus side, you could walk to the nearby train station to catch a VIA. (Provided you didn't mind taking a perhaps-not-entirely-approved-path over the rails ;) Great video! As an architect I very much love the concept of mid-density neighborhoods as well as well-done high rise and high urban environments. As you note, it's about options to cater to many different desires and price points. I'll also add it's about design -- many people don't like certain types because they've never encountered or experienced well-designed versions of them. :)
This is a fantastic video I need to show my brother.
Great analysis. Gotta point out 1-2 other things - shadows and wind tunnels. It's difficult to get around how towers can darken a street overall, or create new wind tunnels, which has very real consequences on livability, walkability and attractiveness of the surrounding areas. Zoning has to be strategic to ensure the right land gets sunlight at the right time of day.
What's interesting is that the slender Vancouver-style point towers that go taller than wider are actually planned with exactly that goal: minimising impacts on shadows, wind, and views like wider buildings.
@@OhTheUrbanity true, no doubt on the effectiveness of Vancouverism on urban planning. I just wish it was applied in more cities, as I think that many of the anti-tower sentiment around the world comes from their indiscriminate, poorly thought-out placement that causes a blight on skylines.
Just discovered this Chanel! So awesome!
Art Deco skyscrapers really were the best of both worlds. Wide at street level, no ugly fake greenspaces and hideous plazas around them but rather street facing facades that feel inviting and cozy, and setbacks further up to allow light to hit the street.
I personally like high rise buildings, but of course not having an over abundance of them is preferred.
Great video and arguments! I've learned and become so interested in urban design from watching your guy's videos!
I agree that you shouldn't ban high rises but they have more problems than the ones you've mentioned.
high rises are more expensive to live in not because of the initial cost but because maintenance is much more expensive and when people without sufficient funds live in them they cannot afford it and the building start to deteriorate.
As for people forced to live further away from the city thus have longer commute, it can happen but with good city planning with mixed use zoning they will be able to work where they live and not commute every morning to the city center. I live in Barcelona and it is densely populated but the adjacent "suburb" - L'Hospitalet de Llobregat - is much denser and, like the other cities near Barcelona, has plenty of work places to offer the local residents.
Maintenance cost is a great point.
great video! Imagine how much more nature and parks cities could allow when we stick to more high rise buildings, in EU so much land in big cities get wasted with only max 5 stories buildings and super expensive.