Within that price range. Skyscraper flats in many European cities are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. The cost of building a flat in a Skyscraper are significantly higher than the cost of a flat in a 7 story building.
In San Francisco, a similar apt. is $3000+.
Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can earn their money at $1250/month. Not cheap but most standards but also not insanely expensive as SF.
The issue in SF is not that we're building 7 story buildings instead of 30 story buildings but that it's hard to get approval for 4 story building unless you promise to sell 125% of capacity for below-market rates and even if you do, there will be neighborhood organization bad mouthing every project at best and suing you under any pretext they can at worst. Even if they eventually loose the lawsuit, they'll successfully delay construction.
I can't talk about your house obviously but the vast majority of Skyscraper in Europe have economics where the bulk of the investment cost is carried by expensive flats and not cheap ones. So yes, some people might have cheap flats but that does not mean that you can take the unit count of the Skyscraper and say "N cheap flats".
If you take the Triiiple in Vienna for instance the current quoted costs are 3500 euro per square meter purchasing price for the cheapest flats going up to 9000 euro per square meter for higher up floors. And the Triiiple is considered one of the more affordable projects.
Skyscraper flats ... are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person.
Without new units, the occupants of the (unbuilt) new luxury units would simply be driving out the occupants of other (more affordable) spaces in older units.
> Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices.
Well, if anything is driving up population density, it's increasing the number of inhabitants per square meter, just like skyscrapers do.
The real strawman here is "But these cities still aren't building to the pace of their population growth."
If they were, what good does it do for anyone? It's putting more gasoline to the fire instead of letting it burn out. Any effect from building more housing has only short-term positive (and long-time negative) effects on gentrification if the original desirability of the area doesn't change.
The only proven ways to decrease desirability of the area are getting rid of the original jobs (like Detroit) or increasing prices to so absurd levels that people seriously question if they should go there (London, Bay Area).
You can build high density (4-8 stories not skyscrapers) apartment buildings to house a million more people (and required infrastructure) around berlin and there will still be plenty of space to continue growing.
Do you think that if the supply of new apartment suddenly increased dramatically it will have no effect on rents rising?
Basically your argument is that skyscrapers make cities TOO AWESOME.
I don't care if you don't like concrete jungles. If prices go up because of skyscrapers, you are being outvoted! Let the market decide.
Skyscrapers are a double benefit. They make the city more awesome AND allow more people to share in that awesomeness, via density.
You set up some weird strawman about skyscrapers, do you have anything to back up your claims?
Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability.
Restrictions on development, and NIMBYism is what destroys the cost of living and development in cities.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...