Task 2: Some cities create housing for their growing population by providing taller buildings. Other cities create housing by building on wider areas of land. Which solution is better?

Question

Rapid urbanization has been a global phenomenon, which leads to the concern for house expansion. While some cities opt to construct taller buildings, others consider expanding their housing areas horizontally as their best option. From my perspective, I think the former solution outweighs the later one.

Vertical house brings two core benefits to city’s life. Firstly, it enables us to optimize the land use. If tall apartments are erected and chosen as a place of residence, a unit of land can accommodate a larger number of residents. Secondly, with vertical houses, land can be spared for other purposes such as cultivating crops to meet to growing food demand or widening street to alleviate traffic congestion, which can address the issues associated with overpopulation.

Meanwhile, expanding houses in horizontal direction might pose a threat to the environment and people’s life. It is obvious that land will not grow while the population keeps increasing. As a result, forest land, the habitat of a variety of animals, can be encroached to make room for people. For example, in Brazil, a major part of forests are removed for residential area, which not only endangers wildlife but also puts human civilization at higher risk of natural disasters. With narrowed forests, floods and droughts have taken place more often, damaging the agriculture, the economy and other important sectors of this country.

In conclusion, employing the same area of land, vertical cities can be more beneficial than horizontal cities which are not only environmentally damaging but also unsustainable in the long run. Personally, it is advisable to develop their city in a vertical way as soon as possible.