It typically doesn’t happen this way, though. Typically, a city becomes very popular for some reason, gets into a housing crisis as it grows, then developers see an opportunity and build skyscrapers. Seattle is a good example — major growth due to tech, and huge housing affordability crises. But not caused because new high rises are going up everywhere, but because of an influx of high paying jobs in the tech sector, which causes high rises to be built to meet that existing need
I struggle to think of a scenario in which a developer would build a high rise in a city that didn’t already have the demand for that much new housing.
Beyond that, cities do already plan for infrastructure capacity. (As an example, certain new construction in Seattle has to pay a fee for some time to help cover the cost of capacity expansion.)
Of course what you’re saying is right in that a new skyscraper will increase load on existing infrastructure. But I struggle to think of cities that aren’t handling that already… and then building skyscrapers that start causing brownouts and water shortages. That just doesn’t typically happen. (In other words, why would we need an extra permitting/design step when it’s already being done to some extent.)
Beyond that, skyscrapers are built in places with existing population density, so it’s not like we’re doubling population density in the city.
Not to mention parking minimums, which are very common. And developers love to capitalize on parking. (Most new high rises in Seattle have several below-ground floors of private parking, and it ain’t cheap!)
I struggle to think of a scenario in which a developer would build a high rise in a city that didn’t already have the demand for that much new housing.
Beyond that, cities do already plan for infrastructure capacity. (As an example, certain new construction in Seattle has to pay a fee for some time to help cover the cost of capacity expansion.)
Of course what you’re saying is right in that a new skyscraper will increase load on existing infrastructure. But I struggle to think of cities that aren’t handling that already… and then building skyscrapers that start causing brownouts and water shortages. That just doesn’t typically happen. (In other words, why would we need an extra permitting/design step when it’s already being done to some extent.)
Beyond that, skyscrapers are built in places with existing population density, so it’s not like we’re doubling population density in the city.
Not to mention parking minimums, which are very common. And developers love to capitalize on parking. (Most new high rises in Seattle have several below-ground floors of private parking, and it ain’t cheap!)