Cities grow! The choice here is between upward and outward. You can keep buildings unnaturally short, which forces the city to spread out, increasing commute times (and a whole lot more). Or you can let things grow, and let the place be more livable for the people that actually live there.
In fact the new financial district off to the side with its skyscrapers and, I imagine, no height limit, while modern and fancy, just doesn't feel as city-like as the rest of Paris. It feels like a dead place where people only come to work.
I've only spent a good week in Paris, so it might feel different when you're living there for a long time. But not-tall cities are totally cool.
On that note, parts of Toronto like that feel the exact same way.
I don't understand why this formula is so hard for urban planners to accept. You see it in every thriving city. It simply should not be allowed to make a 5+ story building that is purely housing and is recessed from the sidewalk. When it is allowed you get the alienating Corbusier style housing project vibe. This crap has been thrown up all over the DC area in recent years.
That being said, I'm interested in the neighborhoods/buildings you mentioned being so bad. Could you share which locations you're referencing?
The reason DC has gotten nicer lately isn't the sprawl. It's because it's become a major target for young professionals, which have driven the poor people out of many parts of the city.