In Pando Daily, Farhad Manjoo cites the lack of skyscrapers as one of the reasons that San Francisco isn't a "world capital" city: pandodaily.com

In The Guardian, Rowan Moore talks about how high-rises are ruining London's Skyline: guardian.co.uk

Which camp do you fall in? Why?

My thoughts from earlier this week on Rowan Moore's criticism of the high-rise growth spurt in London:

The arguments in both articles hinge on building height and skyline appearance, when in the reality of urban planning and development, those things should be the natural endpoint of a healthy process that starts with the basic infrastructure that's absolutely necessary for a great city. Transit needs to be comprehensive enough to reduce or eliminate the need to drive (having visited London often for work and lived in San Francisco, I can say that London's network is much more successful than SF's in that regard). Public spaces and street-level infrastructure - bike lanes, pop-up parks, strong, varied retail presence, etc. - must make neighborhoods desirable enough for people to be able live, work, and play there 24 hours a day.

Dubai is a great example of what results when people place a higher priority on building height than essential infrastructure - raw sewage has to be trucked out of the city because it lacks a comprehensive sewer system, and some if it is dumped in the surrounding desert.