In the past two decades, there has been an exponential increase in the migration of people to different cities and countries, indirectly resulting in a considerable infrastructure development. However, there has been a long-standing debate on whether to direct these infrastructure projects to current cities or establish new counties. Careful consideration of both alternatives reveals that each has its positives and negatives.
One of the major advantages of focusing on current cities for new construction is that it would benefit the residents of the cities in multiple ways. Tenants living in Vancouver would prefer to buy a newly constructed house in the city where they work rather than in a new town, to reduce their commute time. Moreover, the city has everything they desire such as efficient public transport, thriving job market and affordable healthcare. This would not be possible in new towns because of the time it takes to establish services and generate opportunities for people.
On the other hand, accommodating people in houses built in newly created towns would put them in a pollution-free and clean environment. This is because new towns may take at least 10 years of time to become an attractive spot for people and industries alike. As a result, their exposure to harmful emissions from industrial plants and transportation is reduced, shielding them from the risks of acquiring health complications. A recent report released by the word Health Organization (WHO) suggests that the number of people affected by airborne infections is 20% higher in cities compared to new towns that were formed just a couple of years ago.
In conclusion, while there are both positive and negative aspects to these views, the decision on where to build the new homes to accommodate increasing population will depend on many other factors as well. Therefore, a thorough assessment is required before starting an infrastructure.
In the past two decades, there has been an exponential increase in the migration of
people
to
different
cities
and countries,
indirectly
resulting in a considerable infrastructure development.
However
, there has been a long-standing debate on whether to direct these infrastructure projects to
current
cities
or establish
new
counties. Careful consideration of both alternatives reveals that each has its positives and negatives.
One of the major advantages of focusing on
current
cities
for
new
construction is that it would benefit the residents of the
cities
in multiple ways. Tenants living in Vancouver would prefer to
buy
a
newly
constructed
house
in the city where they work
rather
than in a
new
town
, to
reduce
their commute time.
Moreover
, the city has everything they desire such as efficient public transport, thriving job market and affordable healthcare. This would not be possible in
new
towns
because
of the time it takes to establish services and generate opportunities for
people
.
On the other hand
, accommodating
people
in
houses
built in
newly
created
towns
would put them in a pollution-free and clean environment. This is
because
new
towns
may take at least 10 years of time to become an attractive spot for
people
and industries alike.
As a result
, their exposure to harmful emissions from industrial plants and transportation is
reduced
, shielding them from the
risks
of acquiring health complications. A recent report released by the word Health Organization (WHO) suggests that the number of
people
affected
by airborne infections is 20% higher in
cities
compared to
new
towns
that
were formed
just
a couple of years ago.
In conclusion
, while there are both
positive
and
negative
aspects to these views, the decision on where to build the
new
homes to accommodate increasing population will depend on
many
other factors
as well
.
Therefore
, a thorough assessment
is required
before
starting an infrastructure.