Congratulations! You are Le Corbusier and you have invented midcentury modernist city planning.
In all seriousness, if you are going to build a city with no vehicles on the surface, Towers in a Park is not the way to do it. There are many successful examples of medieval cities with high enclosure, and no successful examples of modernist cities with low enclosure. People are very sensitive to distance, and the only way they will ever walk from one of those towers to another is if there is also something interesting or useful for them to look at every 20-30 feet along the way.
And to be sure, I am not married to the low-enclosure idea. I did the math for the worst-case scenario: "what if everyone wants plenty of space around?". If people in fact prefer higher enclosure I would have no qualms about spacing the buildings three times as closely, and maybe setting aside parts of the real estate for greenbelts a-la central park in NYC. That would actually allow me to achieve even higher population density, which is the goal I was shooting for. My only concern is that such approach creates non-uniformity in desirability of different buildings, which may in turn create population density distortions and thus trafic abnormalities. So I would have to schedule more busses in some areas. Too much thinking for a concept, but certainly manageable if one were to actually build this.
I think uniformity of density allows for uniformity of traffic, however that does not require uniformity of "culture and ambiance" for lack of a better term. If there are 10 million people in the city you can have vastly different ambiance in different parts of the city, yet with roughly equal number of people trying to get to any such spot at any point in time.
Does it make sense? I am trying to avoid a situation where some parts of the city are much more popular that others for people at large, and I think that does not contradict that some part of the city would be more attractive to a subset of people.
In all seriousness, if you are going to build a city with no vehicles on the surface, Towers in a Park is not the way to do it. There are many successful examples of medieval cities with high enclosure, and no successful examples of modernist cities with low enclosure. People are very sensitive to distance, and the only way they will ever walk from one of those towers to another is if there is also something interesting or useful for them to look at every 20-30 feet along the way.