In cities, planners say located shops, schools, office buildings and houses should be in a widely separated area. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Great changes have taken place in the work and lifestyle of modern people. Many city planners decided to separate commercial districts, schools, and residential districts to accelerate the city’s development and meet the needs of the growing population. Obviously, this kind of planning is unreasonable because the city’s facilities are to provide convenience for citizens. Firstly, the obvious disadvantage is that it will cause environmental pollution. To be precise, people will not work, study and live in one area. All residents must use public and private vehicles to move to another area. Therefore, buying a car will become a necessity for many people, which means that they will use more gasoline and emitting more car exhaust will only intensify the greenhouse effect. Secondly, it is inconvenient for the people to lay out the city in a modular management manner. Indeed, this runs counter to the natural development of human society in which we live together and support each other. Suppose shops, schools, office buildings and residential areas are separated. In that case, people’s access to shopping centers will be restricted, resulting in the consequence that small and medium-sized shops cannot survive. In other words, people living in a community with well-distributed supporting buildings means that it can meet their basic needs in one area, which is more convenient and more efficient. In conclusion, although the centralized management method may have a positive side, but the drawbacks are far more severe than the benefits. Cities should be the place where citizens can access all essential services, and the city planners must consider reducing traffic flows to meet the environment-friendly criteria.