Yeah, you're on the wrong website.Skyscraper are overrated IMO. Density is overrated either. You don't necessarily need dense place with 200m+ building to make a nice city. It depends on the country, region etc. The US, being the richest and more powerful country in the World, have one of the smallest share of population living in multifamily-multistory buildings in the OECD, for instance.
It isn't just economics that drive skyscraper construction, many sociologists and other experts in the field back up my assertion that the status symbol afforded by a "good" address or prominent position within a large building is an important factor. Just go to google scholar and type in "Skyscrapers status symbol" and you'll find peer reviewed literature on the subject.No developer builds skyscrapers "for fun" (with the possible exception of one city). Supply follows demand, and they are built as required. Central Business Districts exist for very good reasons, and no... you couldn't just spread out all of the CBD head offices into the wilderness or a far flung suburb. It boggles the mind that anyone could think they are just put up as glamorous status symbols.
Of course that is true... but I'd say that it is a fairly well known concept that people or corporations enjoy beautiful status symbols that will represent themselves or their company, and go beyond being strictly rudimentary or utilitarian. A corporation needs office space, but of course they want it to look good. Throughout history people gravitate toward beautiful homes, castles, cars, clothes etc... as they are able to afford them. People enjoy having a "good address"; many would rather have Belgravia as their address than Thamesmead. Nothing new there. The point is, the buildings are not just slapped up for fun; they represent usable office space (with, as I noted, the exception of one city where many buildings were built strictly as vanity projects). They can also be beautiful and not strictly utilitarian concrete behemoths, though, in the same way that a dress can either be glamorous on a woman, or simply be a couple of old potato sacks sewn together. A good example is the famous and beautiful tower in your avatar that was not entirely a utilitarian project. It could have been slapped up from a jumble of old mismatched bricks, with no thought to detail or shape. It had a use, but was also a status symbol at the same time.It isn't just economics that drive skyscraper construction, many sociologists and other experts in the field back up my assertion that the status symbol afforded by a "good" address or prominent position within a large building is an important factor. Just go to google scholar and type in "Skyscrapers status symbol" and you'll find peer reviewed literature on the subject.
"Skyscrapers" are obviously not required EVERYWHERE. There are many towns or small cities around the world that do not need them, hence they do not need them. A city that is mostly residential, or has a small business community and no head offices likely doesn't require any 100 storey buildings. That doesn't mean they are not required anywhere, however.What a preposterous notion; OF COURSE skyscrapers are not only reasonable but absolutely necessary EVERYWHERE.
If Earth does not resemble Coruscant, keep building!
And when Earth resembles Coruscant...keep building anyways!