In this day and age, in some cities, the governments decide to construct
high-rise buildings to provide housing for their citizens. However, I find
myself in complete disagreement with this opinion because of the potential risk they offer
On the one hand, A vertical city can better optimize the land-use because
the land on earth will not grow any bigger, while the human population
is ever-increasing. If tall apartments are erected and chosen as a place of
residence, a unit of land can accommodate a larger number of residents.
For instance, instead of allocating 100 miles square of land for the
construction of houses for a population of only 100 households, the government can provide accommodation for ten times as many when
constructing a ten-story apartment. Therefore, more land can be
available for other purposes, such as cultivating crops to meet the
growing food demands or expanding streets to alleviate traffic
congestion, which can address critical issues associated with
overpopulation.
On the other hand, when matters of safety take into consideration, the
second approach might surpass the first. The reason is the ability to
withstand the devastation caused by natural disasters. Whether it is an
earthquake or hurricane, the damage suffered by low buildings can be
less catastrophic due to their stronger foundation and less heavy load.
Additionally, in case of emergencies, such as fires and earthquakes, the
high-rise skyscrapers could potentially be much more dangerous for its
inhabitants than smaller houses. A prime example is that when it comes
to fires, elevators could be shut down and the stairs could be inaccessible
due to the fires and the smoke, precluding people from escaping to
safety if one is stranded on the top floors of a skyscraper.
In conclusion, although building a vertical city may be a good idea
because of the population problem, I still concern about its harmful effects on citizens lives
In this day and age, in
some
cities, the
governments
decide to construct
high-rise buildings to provide housing for their citizens.
However
, I find
myself in complete disagreement with this opinion
because
of the potential
risk
they offer
On the one hand, A vertical city can better optimize the land-
use
because
the
land
on earth will not grow any bigger, while the human population
is ever-increasing. If tall apartments
are erected
and chosen as a place of
residence, a unit of
land
can accommodate a larger number of residents.
For instance
,
instead
of allocating 100 miles square of
land
for the
construction of
houses
for a population of
only
100 households, the
government
can provide accommodation for ten times as
many
when
constructing a ten-story apartment.
Therefore
, more
land
can be
available for other purposes, such as cultivating crops to
meet
the
growing food demands or expanding streets to alleviate traffic
congestion, which can address critical issues associated with
overpopulation.
On the other hand
, when matters of safety take into consideration, the
second approach might surpass the
first
. The reason is the ability to
withstand the devastation caused by natural disasters. Whether it is an
earthquake or hurricane, the damage suffered by low buildings can be
less catastrophic due to their stronger foundation and less heavy load.
Additionally
, in case of emergencies, such as fires and earthquakes, the
high-rise skyscrapers could
potentially
be much more
dangerous
for its
inhabitants than smaller
houses
. A prime example is that when it
comes
to fires, elevators could
be shut
down and the stairs could be inaccessible
due to the fires and the smoke, precluding
people
from escaping to
safety if one
is stranded
on the top floors of a skyscraper.
In conclusion
, although building a vertical city may be a
good
idea
because
of the population problem, I
still
concern about its harmful effects on citizens
lives
Funny
Love
Wow
Angry
Sad