You’ve had this argument a hundred times. Someone proposes a new apartment building, and within minutes the conversation turns to height. “It’ll block the sun,” they say. “It’ll ruin the neighborhood character.” We’ve been conditioned to think that the height of a building is the primary villain in the story of urban decay. But after diving deep into the research, I’m convinced we’ve been fighting the wrong enemy.
Ben Southwood spent years dissecting the most common arguments against new development. His analysis of eight persistent architecture myths reveals something startling: height doesn’t even make the list. The real myths that are strangling our cities are about density, community, and the very purpose of buildings themselves.
Let’s start with the biggest one. Myth number one: “Architecture is about aesthetics.” We treat buildings like sculptures—objects to be judged by how they look from the outside. But a building’s primary job isn’t to look pretty from the street. Its job is to house human life. A beautiful building that fails to create a livable, affordable, walkable neighborhood is a failure of architecture, not a success.
Myth number two: “Density means overcrowding.” This is the hidden assumption behind so much NIMBY rhetoric. People imagine Tokyo’s packed subway cars and assume that’s what density looks like. But the best dense cities—places like Barcelona, Paris, or even older parts of Manhattan—achieve density without claustrophobia. They do it through mid-rise buildings, narrow streets, and ground-floor shops. Density isn’t the enemy. Poor design is.
Here’s the twist that most people miss: the article that debunks these myths doesn’t mention height once. That’s the point. The author knew that height is a decoy. Height is a distraction. The real enemy of good cities is bad density. When we argue about how many stories a building should have, we’re avoiding the real conversation: what kind of life do we want that building to support?
I saw this firsthand in my own neighborhood. A proposed six-story building was fought tooth and nail by residents who claimed it would “destroy the character.” The real issue? They were afraid of change, not height. The building eventually went up, and now the ground-floor café is the most popular spot on the block. The character didn’t die—it evolved.
So why do these myths persist? Because they’re easy to weaponize. “Save our skyline” sounds noble. “We need better density” sounds like technocratic jargon. But the truth is that every time we block a sensible building because of a myth, we push housing prices higher, push families out, and push our cities toward sprawl.
Stop blaming height. Start demanding good design. If you want to save your city, stop fighting the wrong fight. The next time someone says a building is too tall, ask them: Is it too tall, or is it just different? And then ask yourself: what myth are you letting them get away with?
FAQ
Q: But isn't height a real concern for sunlight and views?
A: Height matters, but it's often a smokescreen. A poorly designed low-rise building can block more sunlight than a well-designed tall, slender tower. The real issue is the quality of the design, not the number of stories.
Q: So what should we advocate for instead of fighting height?
A: Focus on density done right: mixed-use neighborhoods, human-scale streets, public spaces, and ground-floor shops. Stop fighting height and start fighting bad design. Demand that new buildings contribute to a livable, walkable, affordable community.
Q: Isn't density just a euphemism for overcrowding?
A: No. Overcrowding is a result of poor planning, not density. The densest cities in the world—Tokyo, Barcelona, Paris—are also some of the most livable. Density done well means efficient use of space, not cramped living.