Sparks said"Do you know of Dr. Freud? His ideas with male preoccupation with size might be of particular interest to you, Mr. Ismay."Titanic
, good quote.
Skyscrapers make sense when available land is scarce, limiting buildings to a small footprint. But very tall buildings are not efficient, requiring large amounts of interior volume to be taken away from productive floorspace to instead accommodate elevators and other service facilities, and a more robust internal supporting structure to carry the weight, resist greater wind loading, and survive seismic events. And the unfavorable ratio of nonproductive service space to useable space increases as building height increases, along with operating & maintenance costs.
So in recent years many corporations have moved their offices into suburban areas which allow for a larger campus, with buildings of much lesser height but larger footprint. Construction costs are also less, since load bearing and other structural requirements are greatly reduced, and construction methods are simplified. There's also the human factor, as most people prefer to remain closer to the ground, where building access is simpler, quicker & easier, and they feel safer. This psychological comfort can translate into improved worker productivity, and a less stressful living experience in residential units.
Therefore I view these latest ultra-skyscrapers as being more ego driven than needs driven. And I wonder if they will prove too expensive to operate to be profitable in the long run.