what's odd about this article is the conflation of more transparency/input into air rights and design, and the super-rich building opulent skinny towers in an opaque "cap-and-trade" on air rights.<p>'yes' to more transparency, but 'no' to slowing down development via "community reviews" and more zoning/code restrictions, even if it only benefits the wealthy for now. slowing down development doesn't provide any more affordable housing. that requires other policy changes, and more importantly, political will.
This article is strangely interested in quoting the talking points of a single NIMBY. It's Manhattan, for goodness sakes! Can't we have even one city in the US where building tall is allowed?
I hate waiting for, and the time taken in, the elevator. I would have to not like people or going outdoors to live in one of those.<p>Or... what I always thought would be a cool mode of transport: zipline tubes in the city connecting buildings. Then I only have to zip down part way across to a shop, and up a bit to get back.
I personally think these skyscrapers look great aesthetically but they apparently are plagued with design and maintenance problems. See <a href="https://youtu.be/RWX9JmihWpE" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/RWX9JmihWpE</a> for a short video describing some of the issues. Between this, the sinking/tilting millennium tower in SF, and the collapse in Miami, I do wonder if these types of shared tall condo buildings are going to disappear.