[0]: http://www.archdaily.com/604056/north-america-s-radiant-city...
The current alternative that US prefers is far worse, in my opinion -- these micro-unit apod-ment things, with no personal space, no outdoor space, grossly overburdened personal-areas-forced-into-common-areas, and general dorm-room-for-life lifestyle.
Communities that grow organically look messy and gross. And there's a certain personality type that wants to come in and fix the mess.
But it just doesn't turn out to work that way.
-Central Park is a desirable place to spend time, unlike the artificial, pseudopublic spaces that separate highrise complexes.
-Population density is _much_ higher in those neighborhoods than you get with multi-building highrise complexes.
-There are shops nearby that, along with the park, provide a reason for people to spend time there throughout the day. People don't like spending time in deserted plazas.
Have you ever lived in a high-rise surrounded by open space? A lot of people, myself included, really like it.
You're stating your own personal preference as if it were some universal fact.
You also seem to have a limited understanding of housing design. For example, lots of Corbusier-inspired high-rise developments have shops and restaurants mixed in among the parks and buildings.
I suspect the bulk of the complaints people have with high-rise housing projects for low-income residents in the US are driven more by the policies and operations of low-income housing - lack of maintenance, poor security, etc. The design model has worked out quite well for higher income residents in plenty of places - even in the US, for example, near south Florida beaches.