Since when does the shape of a city define it as being "real" or not? Maybe I'm missing something.

Any modern city that had all that prime beach land waiting to be developed would probably grow in a similar manner. Now that Dubai is rather "long" it's growing out into the desert too. e.g. newer areas such as Barsha and whatever that area is called where the dragon market is (edit: Mirdif).

If you don't like Manhattan then it might just look like a strip of tall buildings sandwiched between two straights, but you can't say that it's not a real city.

Dubai is certainly a giant bubble, but it's as real a city as any other city.

There is no reason to build buildings that tall when land is so cheap around it. And not just closer to the desert but also to the north and south. Just looking at the place you can see poor economic choices being made.

For comparison the strip in las vegas is basicly a tourist trap in the middle of the desert http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=las+vegas&ie=UTF... but it still has plenty of support around it. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=las+vegas&um=1&#...

There’s a very simple reason: air conditioning. One skyscraper with a thousand residents is going to be more energy-efficient than a thousand single-family homes or even a hundred smaller apartment buildings. It also allows the developer to offer tenants some other amenities, such as restaurants or shopping, just an elevator ride away, and others within a few blocks or a short drive.

Most Americans aspire to live in a detached single-family house with a yard, if they don’t live that way already, but I don’t think this is a worldwide preference.

If you want to optimize for energy-efficiency and short travel distances, you end up with something spherical or octahedral, and probably mostly buried, like a subterranean Epcot Center, or maybe Arcosanti. The form of Burj Khalifa is following a very different function.

Buildings rappidly increase in cost as the height increases. A 30 story building has vary close to the same amount of surface area as a 60 story building, but a 60 story building needs to support the full weight of the 30 storys on top of it, and at the same time have spare elivator capacity to reach the top 30 floors.

http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/language/en-us/the-tower.aspx

Yes, the cost is nonlinear with height, but my point is that the benefit to density can also be very high.

(I can believe that in the specific case of the Burj the cost outweighs the benefit, given that the skyscraper was built primarily to give Dubai bragging rights. But even if the infrastructure of a 124-story skyscraper is too expensive, that doesn’t refute the value of 60-to-80-story buildings.)

A classic example of what you're talking about is Los Angeles. Almost the entire stretch of land between Santa Barbara and San Diego is developed, and so now you see ever-growing hordes of people in the more inland, desert communities.

How about:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...

Also bear in mind the relative populations of New York, Beijing and Dubai. No surprise Dubai looks "tiny".

Not that I'm standing up for Dubai - I didn't like it at all when I went there and it has some very serious problems. I think the demographics don't match the form of the city very well - the city is too large and the buildings are too grand to match the people who are actually there (who are mostly construction workers it seems).

miami is freaking huge. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about it.

also, it's more than just Miami -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Florida_metropolitan_area

I interpreted the comment that I replied to to mean that Dubai being a strip along the coastline meant that it didn't look like a real city. I would say that it's probably more of an indicator that it's got nice beaches than anything else.

Miami was the first strip like city that sprung to mind as a counterexample, but as you say, it is huge, so it probably wasn't the best comparison.

The have a beautiful coast line, however, it still needs work. The lack of jetties, detached/floating breakwaters, groynes and seawalls is going to cost them in the long run. The city is still in its infancy so they may be planned- at least one hopes so.

For comparison:

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&... (scroll along the coast)

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&... (nice example of erosion)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&... (prime example of good coast protection.)

Here is a good example for what is in store(area of Dubai): http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=google+maps+dubai...

Here we can see erosion(/) and building(\) taking place. Those "palm" islands are not going to stay that way forever.

After looking more into it, here are some articles about the risk their beaches face.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/environment/saving-dubai-s...

http://www.dubaipropertycrash.com/wp/2009/02/tsunami-dubai-p...

http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/27...

http://humanitieslab.stanford.edu/UrbanSustainability/111

http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry/...