I think skyscrapers are an anti-pattern (though they're better than suburbs of course) because the are oppressive, block the sky, create artificially high density, and don't have features like porches where you can say high to your neighbors. You can't just walk out your front door. If there's a fire? Screwed. If you need something fixed? You depend on specialized workers (even more so than a house). Etc. They're a little anti-social. You also don't tend to have any meaningful outdoor space. I think somewhere like Amsterdam (and there are many, many other examples) is a better model. You want diversity in your buildings and living arrangements too. You want to be able to walk out your front door and down the block to a coffee shop without any barriers (car, or elevator). You want to see your neighbors and their kids. You want to be able to do work on your dwelling that you control.
Now I'm not saying that living in a skyscraper is like some sort of dystopia (though I think they look dystopian in a different way than suburbs do), but then again neither are the suburbs really. So I don't think I can honestly rail against one (except on energy expenditure) and not the other since to me they are both bad compromises whereas medium density, mixed-use walkable towns and neighborhoods with height limits probably around 3-5 stories give you everything you could ever want and more. They blow everything else out of the water.
I am curious why they would be considered too dense? My only issue when living Vietnam was lack of noise pollution laws.