Recently there has been a controversy over the best choice of places to settle in. While a group of people advocates living in a horizontal city, others prefer a vertical one. Though each type involves its own advantages and disadvantages, I am on the side of the former group. Regarding a horizontal city, the terms of equality and safety are addressed as the merits of this mode. First of all, the very first glance at the horizontal place reflects relative economic equality and almost equal living standard. Apparently, this is such an impeccable scenario that overwhelming majority of people have yearned for. One salient feature of the city of horizon is safety. As people settle in the almost same level of the building's height, there will be less likelihood that residents suffer devastating damages from the collapses of skyscrapers and high constructions. A vertical city is still dominant, irrespective of the horizon place's great benefits, for two typical reasons. Firstly, it discloses the outstanding developments of the city and motivates the greater modernization as well. The more infrastructures are built in the city, the more diverse patterns in the architecture industry are uncovered, the more incentives emerge to boost the growth of the whole society. Furthermore, a high building can provide a great deal of accommodation for residents, which help save more space for other essential buildings such as hospitals or schools. In conclusion, although the horizontal and the vertical city both offer specific benefits to the inhabitants, the former tends to be more prevalent at present. Also, I would like to reaffirm my preference over the horizontal city in the debate over these two types of place.