Why can't we make a urban skyscrapers sprawl ?

When i said sprawl i meant that the buildings will have unique way of being spread.
The idea is to combine rural and urban like a dispersed settlement into Skyscraper dispersed city which you have agriculture and woods and open spaces with low density looking but high density and a lot of facilities due to the skyscrapers.

can we consider shanghai as skyscraper sprawl?

http://www.atimetolaugh.org/aerial-photo-views.html

the central axis in Guangzhou is like that - a meridian with all the tube, train, highways and carparking buried beneath a park, lined with supertalls above.

Elster said:

When i said sprawl i meant that the buildings will have unique way of being spread.
The idea is to combine rural and urban like a dispersed settlement into Skyscraper dispersed city which you have agriculture and woods and open spaces with low density looking but high density and a lot of facilities due to the skyscrapers.

Click to expand...

You could and there are places a little like that already. As long as one also had protected wilderness areas. A lot of wild life can not survive in areas settled by humans. They depend on migratory patterns, an intact ecosystem, etc.

I think some residential condos can reproduce this enviroment
dominio marajoara condo

I have new idea many people share with me i believe - Make the cities denser and denser depends on public transportation, only skyscrapers will be future constructed, and if you want to live in a villa or low rise you should go to rural place and then the settlements will be dispersed to make the most from nature and development.

Elster said:

I have new idea many people share with me i believe - Make the cities denser and denser depends on public transportation, only skyscrapers will be future constructed, and if you want to live in a villa or low rise you should go to rural place and then the settlements will be dispersed to make the most from nature and development.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what is happening in Hong Kong and to a lesser extent Singapore? In this case due to limited land availability, rural and natural areas will just soon be eaten up by development in favour of higher density settlements spread in monotonous seas of towering residential blocks.

Kadzman said:

Isn't that what is happening in Hong Kong and to a lesser extent Singapore? In this case due to limited land availability, rural and natural areas will just soon be eaten up by development in favour of higher density settlements spread in monotonous seas of towering residential blocks.

Click to expand...

Yea the idea is that i wouldn't let low rises to built within the city, if you want a villa or low rise have it outside city pattern - not suburb or clustered, but something which will be rural.

Elster said:

I have new idea many people share with me i believe - Make the cities denser and denser depends on public transportation, only skyscrapers will be future constructed, and if you want to live in a villa or low rise you should go to rural place and then the settlements will be dispersed to make the most from nature and development.

Click to expand...

Are you just asking for an evolution of what's already happening? Density gradient patterns since the industrial revolution show that people congregate where work is, resulting in a dip in population in periphery settlements while a single hub gets a surge. The resulting economic growth is used to fund public transit that allows for people to get out of the claustrophobic squalor of the city into low-density suburbs while still having access to the workplace.

Elster said:

Shanghai is a clustered city very regular city. What i meant is a dispersed city that all around the skyscrapers there are greenspaces

Click to expand...

Something like some parts of Toronto ? Look like they are growing out of a forest.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CityPorn/comments/77rx0d/the_megacity_toronto_1167x989/?sort=old

This also sounds much like the "Towers in the Park" utopia that Le Corbusier envisioned. However, his proposals weren't for huge skyscrapers surrounded by large expanses of farmland, but rather an urban landscape characterised by normal highrises set within parks similar to the way in which many suburban homes are, with their yards basically being private parks in a sense. To the people of Paris where his proposals were originally focused, they sounded more like dystopia.

I think a big part of the issue is that while people in urban areas want access to nature, they don't really want it in his proposed setup. They want a streetscape made up of streets lined with buildings where they can walk to and from places while feeling as if they're in an interesting, dynamic, and complex human environment, and they want nature that's either private (as in their own garden/yard for a house) very public (as in a large busy park used by everyone in the community) or totally secluded (as in a large expanse of nature where you can be surrounded by peace and tranquility). Le Corbusier's Towers in the Park concept wasn't any of those things since the green spaces weren't for the private use of individuals or families, weren't major public meeting spaces shared by a whole community since each building would have its own, and weren't expanses of peaceful nature since there would be many individual parks interspersed with buildings throughout the city.

On paper such concepts makes sense since it adds urban density while retaining the green space of suburbia, but in practice it also retains suburban banality and repetitiveness without providing the type of green spaces people find most enjoyable. The fact is, for the most part, tower in the park designs has been largely rejected and discredited.

In terms of the "huge skyscrapers surrounded by farmland" concept, this would require a command-style economy (ie communist) since there wouldn't be an economic justification in a capitalist system to build such huge skyscrapers when there was so much unbuilt-up land nearby. If the land was valuable enough for there to be high enough demand, there would already be smaller buildings constructed similar to a conventional city unless there was regulation to prevent it. And if there weren't already smaller buildings nearby, it's hard to imagine there would be enough demand for a 100 story skyscraper to be built. A government would need to initiate it without the demand being present.

The Fairytale DUO of South East Asia...

Singapore layered with well landscaped water bodies which is also ironically one the most-bussiest maritime point in the world


https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/31976618645/


Kuala Lumpur layered with layers of million years old virgin tropical forests and hills


http://www.desaparkcity.com/southbrooks/#

Shenzhen

more

I think the best example of urban sprawl is found in Russia.

It first started with the soviets, the most notable example would be Tolyatti. The city was completely rebuilt in the 1950s after the built a dam and flooded the previous town that was located there, as of 2017 it has 710,567 people and is the largest non capital city in Russia.

Google Maps
1. Street view
2. Street view
3. Street view

Modern Russian cities have continued this trend of building these suburban high rises. A notable example would be Russia's fastest growing major city Tyumen. It grew from 581,907 in 2010 to 744,554 in 2017, an increase of 27.95%.

Google Maps
1. Street View
2. Street view
3. Street view
4. Street view