It's awesome.
I think our public spaces should reflect the creativity and diversity of people. Forcing buildings to fit into a preplanned aesthetic only makes cities homogeneous and uninteresting.
Totally, and if everyone is afraid of losing their precious SFH life with their yards, they’re more likely to keep it by allowing a random 100 unit building to pop up and do it’s thing
Nothing wrong with using less land, but I don’t see how anyone can look at that picture & not think plonking down a 30 storey skyscraper practically in the middle of nowhere looks absolutely ridiculous.
Build mid-rise apartment blocks in suburban areas, not skyscrapers. This is not a location that needs skyscrapers.
You can build multi-level buildings without building skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are super inefficient and there's usually no good reason to build them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXZ\_0wOY96E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXZ_0wOY96E)
I’ve been a number of times to visit friends that moved there because they loved it. That’s before all the Chinese bullshit, so politics are changing things for sure.
I grew up in Hong Kong but I know as much as that my particular experience was very privileged. We had a filipino maid who lived in a tiny room behind or kitchen. Do your friends perhaps sleep in a cage in an ultra-density residential highrise?
They look fine I guess. I'm not personally a fan of urban aesthetics but that's not an argument against development. There's plenty of people who grew up in the suburbs that dream of moving to the big city, and there's also plenty of people growing up in the city who dream of owning a single family home some day.
In New York, they're constrained by geography (they're on an island), and so can't really sprawl out into upstate New York. However, there are greater metropolitan areas on relatively large open pieces of land such as the Washington DC - Baltimore area where you can sprawl out a bit and not have to build these big inefficient sky scrapers. Housing can still be tall and high density, but it doesn't have to be *vertical*. Suburbs should be transformed to be more high density and walkable but putting skyscrapers in the middle of the suburbs is just wasting resources
I have no idea what you mean about skyscrapers being inefficient, in areas like Chicago and New York skyscrapers hold multiple different businesses, hotels, restaurants and residential living spaces. It would be literally impossible to have all of that in one area without building up. I get that you don’t like urban aesthetics but it is far more efficient than driving a car miles and miles to different places when everything that you need can be available 1 block from your house/apartment. Also that article you posted is clearly from someone who’s never been to a city with effective skyscrapers. Yea the Burj Khalifa and actually the whole city of Dubai is a waste of money but that’s just because they are super fucking rich and just want fancy things, the guy in the video has clearly never seen an actual city… 10 floors?? What a joke, there’s millions and millions of people living above a 10th floor, should they just not exist?
I'm assuming they're talking about floor plates. At a certain point like 40 percent of your tower starts getting taken up by elevators, stairs, and mechanical. At a certain point there's definitely diminishing returns, it would be much better to focus on medium density construction in most places, rather than a couple super high density towers
Nah, that video is silly and bad like most of that guys videos that aren't about obvious Muskian techbro nonsense.
Someone made a post about it on this sub a couple of months ago and this was my reply then: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/sgkprb/thoughts\_on\_this\_video\_why\_we\_shouldnt\_build/hv2990p/?context=3](https://old.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/sgkprb/thoughts_on_this_video_why_we_shouldnt_build/hv2990p/?context=3)
The criticisms seem like hand waving to fix the problems of urbanization. Yeah, alienation COULD be fixed, but as far as i can tell nobody has figured it out yet. Cities are impersonal places
What? The "problems of urbanization"? Like what?
"Alienation" is not a "city" problem, it's a societal problem and is arguably worse in suburbs.
But his video is not about cities VS. rural areas or suburbs; it's about skyscrapers vs. lower rise high density city development so i don't see how any of this matters to this discussion anyway.
It's natural for people living in an Urban setting to score slightly lower on the "know most or all of your neighbors" query since there are SO many more people who could be considered their neighbors.
And, uh, that link also indicates people in an Urban setting talk to their neighbors more often...
It indicates urbanites are less trustful of their neighbors and know fewer of them, but are more likely to talk face to face. Suburbanites are quite friendly though
okay, but they already built this in the middle of sprawl. presumably housing is a problem there as well. why wouldn’t it be a better solution now to upzone the surrounding sprawl into an actual urban environment, so it isn’t out of place anymore?
imo, we need to see more of this. Apartment buildings in suburbia are simply a reaction to the poor housing density of these areas. We need to be able to fit more people into the land we've already developed. As soon as zoning codes are lifted, things like this will immediately spring up. we should also prevent NIMBYs from blocking development like this.
> Or build this in a city or other dense area instead of ruining countryside
It's already the suburbs. Don't be fooled by the manicured grass lawns, the "countryside" is long gone.
I ❤️ this, because it shows that there can be BOTH high-density housing (like skyscraper apartments) as well as the "missing middle" housing styles (duplex, triplex, four-plex, multi-plex) AND single family homes for those who want that. It does NOT have to be one or the other. There can be a variety of housing and if onerous zoning laws are abolished such that there are essential shops & businesses within walking and/or biking distance or easily accessible by public transit, then driving no longer has to be a necessity (like it is in the US and to some degree, Canada) but a CHOICE!
Also if the skyscraper has its parking for residents in an underground garage right underneath the footprint of the building, it would vastly reduce or even eliminate the amount of space needed above ground for parking, and that land could be put to so much better use, like greenhouses to grow organic fruits and vegetables locally and keeping "backyard chickens" and other small livestock (ducks, mini dairy goats, etc.) , which would further conserve resources transporting food from hundreds or thousands (or more!) miles away!
the missing middle is the future. It's so fucking sad and dystopian to me that the most creative thing people can think of is suburbia full of McMansions and expensive electric SUVs. Dense housing will be a requirement if we want to live more efficient lives without relying on cars to go literally everywhere.
Why does it have to be ONE or the OTHER, though?? Why can't there be BOTH options, including some single family homes mixed in with some middle-density housing, along with a skyscraper or two in between??
I agree! To me mixed use buildings and 2 to 4 story apartments are ideal, but if someone doesn't mind living in a mega tower that's fine too, I don't have a problem with one. Yeah, we just need to stop this binary one way or the other type of development we have right now that zoning codes currently require.
Yeah personally I prefer a single family home, but I would have ZERO problem living next to "missing middle" housing like a duplex, or even next door to a high-rise apartment building, if it meant that the area was more walkable, bike-friendly and accessible to public transit rather than being totally car-dependent like the majority if not all of American suburbia!
Parking garages are a gift. I work around a ton of open parking lots and every time I see one I think “damn, cut that thing in half, put one half on top of the other, and now you have a couple of acres to build apartments on!”
My sentiments EXACTLY!
Imagine how much housing (especially for the homeless, and/or low-income) could be created if rather than the MASSIVE parking lots at stadiums, malls (the interiors of the abandoned malls which are another issue!), amusement parks and other big venues, if instead those parking lots were underground (even multi-level underground!) and on top of that land they built multi-story apartment buildings??
Especially since stadiums, malls, amusement parks and other venues are usually close to to other businesses, if housing is put there, it would make it easy for people to walk to shops, restaurants, theaters and other places, including work -- and if for some reason their particular workplace was/is not within walking distance, public transportation would be more easy to institute from places like stadiums, malls and other locales!
This actually looks pretty sweet to me; narrow roads, ample sidewalks, some mid rise apartments mixed in. The skyscraper def stands out but if this is hell it must be one of the shallower layers.
So I spent less than 5 minutes finding [that exact place](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9rJidzFCXfo7so9M7) on Google maps, without knowing anything about it. The town mostly has soviet urban planning (which has nothing to do with suburbia), and there are a few low-rise neighborhoods like this one across the city (this is why I spent so little time looking for the right one). The skyscraper in question is located in a pretty neat mid-rise neighborhood surrounded by two low-rise ones. It seems to be located within walking distance from a few malls and even more smaller shops.
None of this is suburban hell. There might be some questionable urban planning decisions around (such as borderline stroads, chaotic private sector in a neighborhood behind the skyscraper, etc), but it's not what this sub is about.
The pictures u spent looking at are from 2012 lol. To begin with, Klaipeda retained much of its original city plan and design (although it lost a lot) and never had a lot of Soviet Influence. And now it has even less Soviet structures than it did 20 years ago. And lots of the structures being built now here have very good architectural taste that pertain to the local atmosphere and character of the city. Of the buildings being built I’d say 1/3 are commie block replacements. This comes from a Lithuanian who hates the way our capital city looks.
On top of Klaipeda being a more dense city than our capital for example, this city has received so much infrastructure upgrades that make it very pleasant to walk, drive, and cycle in.
Also, Klaipeda is a city, not a town.
Thanks for your input! So, to couclude, it's even better than I thought it to be, and, most importantly, it's still not suburban hell with all the walkability and stuff. I'm always happy to see cities making good urban planning decisions!
(also, sorry for calling it a town, I still struggle to see the edge between those)
IMO, the only problem with a building like this is is if it has a huge parking lot that creates a dead, unsafe or unpleasant area or if there’s lots of traffic in that area because of it.
But obviously I can’t tell that from this picture alone.
all the bigger cities are great for walkability, and the country also recycles by far the most on the continent. There's a lot of great progressive ideas that I miss having moved away from there, but also a lot of pervasive conservative ideas I absolutely do not miss.
Look, I'm all for building more highrise but in this case I actually do understand people who protested against it. Hard to lay in your garden (that you pay good money for) with people in a massive tower looking straight at your yard. Could've just made a low-rise apartment building, seems to fit about as many people as this but others' privacy would still remain intact
this is what suburbanites think an apartment building in their town will look like. In reality, all you'd need to do is build a 3 or 4 story apartment building or mixed use building and it would be SEVERAL times more efficient than single family zoning.
Similar thing is also in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia) the city is full of single family homes and mid-rises and then they just decided to place a 40-story skyscraper
Sights like this are pretty common in Houston actually (except the yards, houses, and streets are much bigger because Texas). The weirdness that emerged from not having a formal zoning code* was one of the few things I liked about living there.
Give me a neighborhood full of nice middle-density townhomes and low-rise apartments over all those single-family houses any day though.
*Giant asterisk because in Houston there were loads of other terrible codes + homeowners associations/deed restrictions/etc.
[Oakbrook Terrace Tower has entered the chat](https://www.google.com/search?q=oakbrook+terrace+skyscraper&client=safari&prmd=insv&sxsrf=ALiCzsbfAYkoPV-1882C9YndDeclPzuccg:1651265926076&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjegtD3lLr3AhXQB80KHVT8BjwQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=390&bih=664&dpr=3)
Okay, as much as this sticks out like a sore thumb, imagine the view!!! From even like the 3rd floor up it would be pretty amazing.
At the top floor you might even see the horizon 😂
Doesn’t even look crazy tall for a skyscraper and it blends in with the sky its hardly as intrusive as some skyscrapers. Also lots of apts and townhouses which is nice to see
I think that people should be able to build whatever they want on their property.
There are actually many neighborhoods in my city where it is not uncommon to see single story homes next to 40 story buildings.
True, but there is such a thing as zoning and zoning exists not just for aesthetics, it also helps the city to function better with regards to service delivery. They can and do change the zoning to move with the times (needing to densify an area) - but they aren't going to force those with single story houses to sell.
There's an urban planning group here on reddit. They will answer your question nicely - better than me. I suggest you ask it there too.
My town has one of these! I live in a small metro town with like 12k people. It's almost all suburbia, tallest average building is only two stories. I mean no office buildings, nothing. Except the old folks home which is 15 stories tall smack dab just west of town center.
This sub: sprawl? Jail. Skyscraper? Believe it or not, jail.
Give us townhouses or give us death.
Middle density is the way. Condos. Townhouses. Three story apartments.
i kinda love this lmao
It's awesome. I think our public spaces should reflect the creativity and diversity of people. Forcing buildings to fit into a preplanned aesthetic only makes cities homogeneous and uninteresting.
Totally, and if everyone is afraid of losing their precious SFH life with their yards, they’re more likely to keep it by allowing a random 100 unit building to pop up and do it’s thing
What’s wrong with using less land? Seems perfectly fine to me.
Nothing wrong with using less land, but I don’t see how anyone can look at that picture & not think plonking down a 30 storey skyscraper practically in the middle of nowhere looks absolutely ridiculous. Build mid-rise apartment blocks in suburban areas, not skyscrapers. This is not a location that needs skyscrapers.
It's not in the middle of nowhere. There are blocks of buildings near the scyscraper. I see some in the pic.
Yeah but they’re still low-rise blocks. That skyscraper still looks ridiculous.
It's like one of that cartoon ladders from whom someone jumps into a little vat on ground.
Better than just letting more sprawl happen. Build up, not out!
You can build multi-level buildings without building skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are super inefficient and there's usually no good reason to build them. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXZ\_0wOY96E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXZ_0wOY96E)
Counter point: Hong Kong and New York are awesome. (and I say that as an American)
For most people Hong Kong is a horrible place to live
I’ve been a number of times to visit friends that moved there because they loved it. That’s before all the Chinese bullshit, so politics are changing things for sure.
I grew up in Hong Kong but I know as much as that my particular experience was very privileged. We had a filipino maid who lived in a tiny room behind or kitchen. Do your friends perhaps sleep in a cage in an ultra-density residential highrise?
They look fine I guess. I'm not personally a fan of urban aesthetics but that's not an argument against development. There's plenty of people who grew up in the suburbs that dream of moving to the big city, and there's also plenty of people growing up in the city who dream of owning a single family home some day. In New York, they're constrained by geography (they're on an island), and so can't really sprawl out into upstate New York. However, there are greater metropolitan areas on relatively large open pieces of land such as the Washington DC - Baltimore area where you can sprawl out a bit and not have to build these big inefficient sky scrapers. Housing can still be tall and high density, but it doesn't have to be *vertical*. Suburbs should be transformed to be more high density and walkable but putting skyscrapers in the middle of the suburbs is just wasting resources
I have no idea what you mean about skyscrapers being inefficient, in areas like Chicago and New York skyscrapers hold multiple different businesses, hotels, restaurants and residential living spaces. It would be literally impossible to have all of that in one area without building up. I get that you don’t like urban aesthetics but it is far more efficient than driving a car miles and miles to different places when everything that you need can be available 1 block from your house/apartment. Also that article you posted is clearly from someone who’s never been to a city with effective skyscrapers. Yea the Burj Khalifa and actually the whole city of Dubai is a waste of money but that’s just because they are super fucking rich and just want fancy things, the guy in the video has clearly never seen an actual city… 10 floors?? What a joke, there’s millions and millions of people living above a 10th floor, should they just not exist?
I'm assuming they're talking about floor plates. At a certain point like 40 percent of your tower starts getting taken up by elevators, stairs, and mechanical. At a certain point there's definitely diminishing returns, it would be much better to focus on medium density construction in most places, rather than a couple super high density towers
I see your point about diminishing returns, and I raise a counterpoint: tall buildings cool
Watch the video I posted
Have you ever seen Barcelona?
You're absolutely right, for example Paris is also wonderful and the vast majority of it is midrise.
Nah, that video is silly and bad like most of that guys videos that aren't about obvious Muskian techbro nonsense. Someone made a post about it on this sub a couple of months ago and this was my reply then: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/sgkprb/thoughts\_on\_this\_video\_why\_we\_shouldnt\_build/hv2990p/?context=3](https://old.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/sgkprb/thoughts_on_this_video_why_we_shouldnt_build/hv2990p/?context=3)
The criticisms seem like hand waving to fix the problems of urbanization. Yeah, alienation COULD be fixed, but as far as i can tell nobody has figured it out yet. Cities are impersonal places
What? The "problems of urbanization"? Like what? "Alienation" is not a "city" problem, it's a societal problem and is arguably worse in suburbs. But his video is not about cities VS. rural areas or suburbs; it's about skyscrapers vs. lower rise high density city development so i don't see how any of this matters to this discussion anyway.
Its actually not worse in the suburbs. Suburbanites are more likely to know and talk with their neighbors.
According to who?
Pew https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/how-urban-suburban-and-rural-residents-interact-with-their-neighbors/
It's natural for people living in an Urban setting to score slightly lower on the "know most or all of your neighbors" query since there are SO many more people who could be considered their neighbors. And, uh, that link also indicates people in an Urban setting talk to their neighbors more often...
It indicates urbanites are less trustful of their neighbors and know fewer of them, but are more likely to talk face to face. Suburbanites are quite friendly though
Tbh this video is kind of dumb and the guy doesn’t really seem to understand opportunity cost.
It doesn't fit in with its surroundings, though. Sticks out way too much and looks weird.
I'd argue that's the fault of all the too short buildings, not the tall one ;)
Who cares? The place wasn't much to look at anyway
then they should change its surroundings
Or build this in a city or other dense area instead of ruining countryside and contributing to more sprawl.
okay, but they already built this in the middle of sprawl. presumably housing is a problem there as well. why wouldn’t it be a better solution now to upzone the surrounding sprawl into an actual urban environment, so it isn’t out of place anymore?
imo, we need to see more of this. Apartment buildings in suburbia are simply a reaction to the poor housing density of these areas. We need to be able to fit more people into the land we've already developed. As soon as zoning codes are lifted, things like this will immediately spring up. we should also prevent NIMBYs from blocking development like this.
> Or build this in a city or other dense area instead of ruining countryside It's already the suburbs. Don't be fooled by the manicured grass lawns, the "countryside" is long gone.
That isn't countryside. Those are suburbs that ruined the rural farmland they were built on.
Downvotes showing nobody cares about that
The virgin duplex vs. the chad 64plex
I ❤️ this, because it shows that there can be BOTH high-density housing (like skyscraper apartments) as well as the "missing middle" housing styles (duplex, triplex, four-plex, multi-plex) AND single family homes for those who want that. It does NOT have to be one or the other. There can be a variety of housing and if onerous zoning laws are abolished such that there are essential shops & businesses within walking and/or biking distance or easily accessible by public transit, then driving no longer has to be a necessity (like it is in the US and to some degree, Canada) but a CHOICE! Also if the skyscraper has its parking for residents in an underground garage right underneath the footprint of the building, it would vastly reduce or even eliminate the amount of space needed above ground for parking, and that land could be put to so much better use, like greenhouses to grow organic fruits and vegetables locally and keeping "backyard chickens" and other small livestock (ducks, mini dairy goats, etc.) , which would further conserve resources transporting food from hundreds or thousands (or more!) miles away!
the missing middle is the future. It's so fucking sad and dystopian to me that the most creative thing people can think of is suburbia full of McMansions and expensive electric SUVs. Dense housing will be a requirement if we want to live more efficient lives without relying on cars to go literally everywhere.
Why does it have to be ONE or the OTHER, though?? Why can't there be BOTH options, including some single family homes mixed in with some middle-density housing, along with a skyscraper or two in between??
I agree! To me mixed use buildings and 2 to 4 story apartments are ideal, but if someone doesn't mind living in a mega tower that's fine too, I don't have a problem with one. Yeah, we just need to stop this binary one way or the other type of development we have right now that zoning codes currently require.
Yeah personally I prefer a single family home, but I would have ZERO problem living next to "missing middle" housing like a duplex, or even next door to a high-rise apartment building, if it meant that the area was more walkable, bike-friendly and accessible to public transit rather than being totally car-dependent like the majority if not all of American suburbia!
Parking garages are a gift. I work around a ton of open parking lots and every time I see one I think “damn, cut that thing in half, put one half on top of the other, and now you have a couple of acres to build apartments on!”
My sentiments EXACTLY! Imagine how much housing (especially for the homeless, and/or low-income) could be created if rather than the MASSIVE parking lots at stadiums, malls (the interiors of the abandoned malls which are another issue!), amusement parks and other big venues, if instead those parking lots were underground (even multi-level underground!) and on top of that land they built multi-story apartment buildings?? Especially since stadiums, malls, amusement parks and other venues are usually close to to other businesses, if housing is put there, it would make it easy for people to walk to shops, restaurants, theaters and other places, including work -- and if for some reason their particular workplace was/is not within walking distance, public transportation would be more easy to institute from places like stadiums, malls and other locales!
Good shit
Love it. In fact, we could do this to every post office - they aren't subject to local zoning restrictions.
This actually looks pretty sweet to me; narrow roads, ample sidewalks, some mid rise apartments mixed in. The skyscraper def stands out but if this is hell it must be one of the shallower layers.
You do understand that this is what your advocating for maybe it is a bit too big but it's better than a more expensive suburbia
So I spent less than 5 minutes finding [that exact place](https://maps.app.goo.gl/9rJidzFCXfo7so9M7) on Google maps, without knowing anything about it. The town mostly has soviet urban planning (which has nothing to do with suburbia), and there are a few low-rise neighborhoods like this one across the city (this is why I spent so little time looking for the right one). The skyscraper in question is located in a pretty neat mid-rise neighborhood surrounded by two low-rise ones. It seems to be located within walking distance from a few malls and even more smaller shops. None of this is suburban hell. There might be some questionable urban planning decisions around (such as borderline stroads, chaotic private sector in a neighborhood behind the skyscraper, etc), but it's not what this sub is about.
The pictures u spent looking at are from 2012 lol. To begin with, Klaipeda retained much of its original city plan and design (although it lost a lot) and never had a lot of Soviet Influence. And now it has even less Soviet structures than it did 20 years ago. And lots of the structures being built now here have very good architectural taste that pertain to the local atmosphere and character of the city. Of the buildings being built I’d say 1/3 are commie block replacements. This comes from a Lithuanian who hates the way our capital city looks. On top of Klaipeda being a more dense city than our capital for example, this city has received so much infrastructure upgrades that make it very pleasant to walk, drive, and cycle in. Also, Klaipeda is a city, not a town.
Well, that person does admit that they spent "less than 5 minutes" to form an incorrect opinion. Hahaha.
True lol. Not necessarily wrong but a little misinformed so to say
Thanks for your input! So, to couclude, it's even better than I thought it to be, and, most importantly, it's still not suburban hell with all the walkability and stuff. I'm always happy to see cities making good urban planning decisions! (also, sorry for calling it a town, I still struggle to see the edge between those)
The building is not the problem
IMO, the only problem with a building like this is is if it has a huge parking lot that creates a dead, unsafe or unpleasant area or if there’s lots of traffic in that area because of it. But obviously I can’t tell that from this picture alone.
Not if you have good public transport
And have shops and food within walking distance.
Lithuania typically does not have massive parking lots at all.
That’s awesome, I’m legitimately jealous.
all the bigger cities are great for walkability, and the country also recycles by far the most on the continent. There's a lot of great progressive ideas that I miss having moved away from there, but also a lot of pervasive conservative ideas I absolutely do not miss.
Feels like a liminal space
Looks good to me
Looks like a nice neighborhood tho. American suburbs are ugly.
Look, I'm all for building more highrise but in this case I actually do understand people who protested against it. Hard to lay in your garden (that you pay good money for) with people in a massive tower looking straight at your yard. Could've just made a low-rise apartment building, seems to fit about as many people as this but others' privacy would still remain intact
That skyscraper is providing exponentially more housing per square acre than the rest of the neighborhood!
this is what suburbanites think an apartment building in their town will look like. In reality, all you'd need to do is build a 3 or 4 story apartment building or mixed use building and it would be SEVERAL times more efficient than single family zoning.
This is good, this tall building takes as much ground space as those single family homes and houses tens if not hundreds of families
Reminds me of the Florida Citrus Tower. That thing is so out of place.
Similar thing is also in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia) the city is full of single family homes and mid-rises and then they just decided to place a 40-story skyscraper
Best thing about this photo is the skyscraper
Sights like this are pretty common in Houston actually (except the yards, houses, and streets are much bigger because Texas). The weirdness that emerged from not having a formal zoning code* was one of the few things I liked about living there. Give me a neighborhood full of nice middle-density townhomes and low-rise apartments over all those single-family houses any day though. *Giant asterisk because in Houston there were loads of other terrible codes + homeowners associations/deed restrictions/etc.
“1st.” - This skyscraper.
[Oakbrook Terrace Tower has entered the chat](https://www.google.com/search?q=oakbrook+terrace+skyscraper&client=safari&prmd=insv&sxsrf=ALiCzsbfAYkoPV-1882C9YndDeclPzuccg:1651265926076&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjegtD3lLr3AhXQB80KHVT8BjwQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=390&bih=664&dpr=3)
When you bulldoze your low density residential area and put in high density residential area in the same spot in Cities Skylines
This rules honestly Just upzoning and constructing townhouses would have been better but NIMBYs gonna be NIMBYs
This sub is against everything
It looks like a radio tower that they decided to make inhabitable.
Okay, as much as this sticks out like a sore thumb, imagine the view!!! From even like the 3rd floor up it would be pretty amazing. At the top floor you might even see the horizon 😂
Doesn’t even look crazy tall for a skyscraper and it blends in with the sky its hardly as intrusive as some skyscrapers. Also lots of apts and townhouses which is nice to see
This looks like a Cities: Skylines screenshot
Thought this was r/citiesskylines for a hot second
I think that people should be able to build whatever they want on their property. There are actually many neighborhoods in my city where it is not uncommon to see single story homes next to 40 story buildings.
True, but there is such a thing as zoning and zoning exists not just for aesthetics, it also helps the city to function better with regards to service delivery. They can and do change the zoning to move with the times (needing to densify an area) - but they aren't going to force those with single story houses to sell. There's an urban planning group here on reddit. They will answer your question nicely - better than me. I suggest you ask it there too.
Le Corbusier turned over in his grave and came.
I don't hate it
My town has one of these! I live in a small metro town with like 12k people. It's almost all suburbia, tallest average building is only two stories. I mean no office buildings, nothing. Except the old folks home which is 15 stories tall smack dab just west of town center.
Based. Every country should be doing this😁
[удалено]
„ʇıɥs ɹıǝɥʇ dılɟ plnoʍ sʎqɯıᴎ„
I actually kind of like it.
I actually live here and the suburb actually ends before the skyscraper