How do you even write something like that? There are a ton of reasons to build up:

* More land is expensive, you don't need to buy more to build up * It's faster to take an elevator to floor 100, than walk through 100 floors

And more I'm sure, this is just off the top of my head.

This isn't a fair comparison in the US, where the majority of cities' downtowns are skyscrapers standing alone in a vast sea of parking lots and freeways. Compare Dallas to something like Paris, especially on population density.

I've never been to either city, but from looking at pictures, both seem to fit your description. If anything Paris looks "flatter", but maybe that's just the composition of these photos.

In any case, my point is that if we decide to always build out instead of up, whatever urban sprawl already exists in any city will only be made worse. City planners actively try to avoid sprawl for a number of reasons, including that it makes public transportation less effective, increases smog, and reduces access to green spaces.

That's the point. Skyscrapers are a rarity in Paris - now go look up the density of the city proper.

> now go look up the density of the city proper

Nah, I don't accept homework assignments from condescending people on the internet, sorry. Feel free to dig up the numbers yourself and post them here, though.

While you're at it, you might be interested in looking up New York City, which is far denser than Paris. What do you think would happen if all the skyscrapers in NYC were flattened out? Where should those people go? Shall we pack them into the city's existing footprint with all the other sardines?

Didn't mean to condescend. Anyway, Paris has 21,498 people/km^2 [0], twice that of New York (10,933 people/km^2), and without an equivalent Manhattan. For the majority of large cities in the USA (14 of the top 20), the given density is under 2,000 people/km^2 [1], including Dallas (1,493 people/km^2). That's the kind of thing I was referring to. Of course, New York and San Francisco are much denser; I was not talking about them, but the average American city. I'd like to give the article the benefit of the doubt that so were they.

ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success!

[0] (Wikipedia, but calculated from https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche?idprec=3293086&q=paris&deb...)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Okay, I'm looking at the numbers more closely now and I concede that Europe's most densely populated city, an extreme outlier, is more densely populated than America's extreme outlier. I also concede that it is denser than Dallas, which is one of the least dense cities in the United States.

If you look at the population densities of median American and European cities, they're quite similar (~13,000/sq mi. or 5000/sq km.). Which makes me wonder why you insist on comparing two cities that are not remotely comparable. Seems like cherry picking.

> ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success!

I'm almost curious why you consider the "average" U.S. city "not a success", but this remark smells too much of the pompous anti-American groupthink that has become so popular on HN lately, so I know better than to expect a rational explanation.

Honestly, I'm starting to find your undeservedly superior attitude and cherry-picked data tiresome, so I don't think I'll bother with this conversation anymore. Have a nice night.

Yup. I'd rather make skyscrapers less boxy (use the multiple overlapping symmetries the author mentions), add lots of skyways between them, and, if feasible, figure out how to add some greenery on the sides.

Look at the Petronas towers for inspiration as a starting point for inspiration.