Do we really need supertall constructions, especially do we really need supertall habitable buildings? (Note: with supertall I call here a construction taller than 1200 feet = 365.76 metres)

For example in Europe, one of the richest parts of the world, there were no supertall habitable buildings realized (in Moscow are some planned, but not realized so far) and there were only a few supertall towers/guyed masts realized in Europe so far:
these are/were:
*Radio mast Konstantynow ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0000672 ), 646.38 metres, completed in 1974, collapsed 1991
*TV Tower Moscow-Ostankino ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000279 ), 577 metres, completed in 1967
*Radio mast Hellissandur ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014958 ), 412 metres, completed in 1959
*TV Tower Kiev ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014809 ), 385 metres, completed in 1973
*Emley Moor TV Mast ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0013859 ), 385 metres, completed in 1964, destroyed in 1969
*Belmont TV Mast ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014952 ), 385 metres, completed in 1965
*Gerbrandy Tower ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0012623 ), 375 metres, completed in 1961
*Riga TV Tower ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0012026 ), 368.5 metres, completed in 1986
*Berlin TV Tower ( http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0000113 ), 368 metres, completed in 1969

It should be mentioned that Berlin TV Tower was until 1997, when the antenna mast was heightened of 3 metres, was not a supertall construction in the sense mentioned above.

This shows that the construction of supertall constructions is not an essantial requirement of high industrialized countries!
In fact all functions required by our society until now can be fulfilled without building supertalls. In fact supertalls are only required for solar towers (here a supertall construction is required for high effiency) and for space elevator projects.
However for high power transmission in the VLF-, LF-, VHF- and UHF-range supertall constructions can make sense, but there is no essential requirement for them. (The radio mast in Konstantynow was replaced by 2 smaller masts at Solec Kujawski, which are 330 metres and 289 metres high, http://www.structurae.net/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014175 and http://www.structurae.net/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014174 )
This is also valid for radio towers with observation deck.

Supertall buildings with offices cause high traffic at rushours and there is the question, if there is a requirement for so many offices, because most companies reduce or have reduced their administrative staff in the last years.
Why should someone build so many offices?
Is not telework the future?
Furthermore many people do not want to work in offices in the upper floors of supertalls and most people wants to live more in small houses than in supertall buildings.
Beside this, there are always security concerns and as the attack of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 showed to the world, there is still always a rest risk with supertall buildings.

So someone can ask the question: do we really need supertall constructions?

Do we need anything more than food, water and shelter? No. We can all just live in trees and eat bugs that comes by. In reality we don't need anything else but we want cool things like skyscrapers.

That's my argument for this. :)

Of course we "need" them. If there wasn't a demand for supertalls then no one would build one because of the amount of money to make them is extremely high. Obviously there are many tenants who are willing to live and work in supertalls, either for the prestige or views, around the world. Whether or not this kind of building will gain momentum in Europe is something else however (although London has two in the works).

Yes we need.
Supertalls is on they way.
and for Ostankino Tele Tower.
It is 540m but there plans to increase the capacity for more channels. 540m is not enough. Also was plans to build second tv tower over 450m.

I learned in geography it's better for the environment.

No we don't but then why are you here on this forum if you don't like them? :D

Yea, cause we need to build up not out

Technically, it is not necessary but it can save a lot of space in a city.

if you dont have enough space i would say lovely bubbly go supertall

But it is interesting that many densely populated rich countries do not build supertall constructions ( = constructions taller than 1200 ft) and other have only a few for transmission purposes.

Was there really a second 450 metre high TV Tower planned at Moscow?

it's better than suburban sprawl...

IMO, it's better to grow vertically and leave everything else to nature :D

Yes supertalls are necessary to minimise urban sprawl.

certainly. i prefer supertall than 'superunder' constructions. superunder i mean here is deep underground.

sure, for exemple in Europe were you have almoust more people than land :(

The world's population is increasing quickly so more space is needed and supertalls give us that space.

Of course we need them. The urge to build taller and taller is an inherent part of the human spirit. It's part of the same drive that leads us to climb mountains, or to explore outer space. :)

Also what can be learned and applied to soem degree in other areas

Leave the countryside for pigs and sheeps and let's build up

I dont.

Of course we need them. The urge to build taller and taller is an inherent part of the human spirit. It's part of the same drive that leads us to climb mountains, or to explore outer space. :)
I was gonna say no, but you just changed my mind.