The reality of Manhattan vs. rolling-hills/open-sky (was Non-locals

> Big, rolling hills in O'Neill cylinders? Don't get fooled by
> the ads. They will come, but the first couple of space-borne
> generations will have to build 'em.
>
> And the above was one reason why I decided this
> somewhat-acidic posting was still worthy of being featured on
> my site. [...]
>
> I feel that a perception of being "outdoors", with natural
> insolation, weather, and day/night cycle will be important
> features for space habitats if we have any desire for them to
> become globally relevant.

I was under the impression that Manhattan and other dense metro
areas did not incorporate those features, yet remained not only
globally relevant but increasingly so. Am I wrong? Is Manhattan
globally irrelevant? Does Manhattan actually look like a
Kim-Stanley-Robinson-esque Calfornia-hippy-topia?

These are multi-use highrise buildings:
http://news.google.com/news?q=multi-use+manhattan

"The single most effective way to get people out of their cars is
through dense, multi-use residential development"

http://www.manhattan2050.com/use.html

"By virtue of extreme height and apparent self-sufficiency, it
removes itself from context and asserts its independence. As a
container for a diverse programme of uses it approximates to
Hood's `City under a Single Roof'."

Increasing numbers and proportions of people are living their
entire lives inside mixed-use buildings that contain residences,
offices, hotel-rooms, retail outlets, restaurants/bars, nightclubs,
etc. Even if a single building cannot serve all of their needs,
they might still not ever go outside, but instead travel directly
from building to building via skyways and basement-connected
subways. It is interesting what material needs...
http://images.google.com/images?q=boss+hogg+cadillac

...for space-entrepreneurs are claimed in the face of modern-day
Manhattan's reality.
http://www.globalgraphica.com/main/archives/091004_groundzero_w498.jpg