The issue of whether it is more enjoyable for city dwellers to have buildings relocated into specific areas or not remains a source of controversy. While there is a strong case for the latter view, I am more inclined to the former.
On the one hand, those against mass construction of offices, schools, shops and homes in seperated areas may state their reasons as follows. The first and foremost explanation would be the difficulties in travel arrangements, making citizens consume a considerable amount of time. For example, metropolitan parents will find it inconvenient to travel between schools and offices in order to pick up their children after classes. Moreover, it is also believed that this strategy can cause traffic congestion during peak time due to long-distance travel.
On the other hand, I would advocate with those who contend that this new urban design would bring three obvious advantages. First of all, this provides citizens greater convenience if we want to access a specific area for a single purpose. For example, whenever we go shopping, we can easily get around to purchase whatever we want without travelling to different destinations. Another noticeable benefit of this policy would be a more secure living environment, which can be considered as a deterrent against crimes. With the shops are located far from private houses, it is unlikely for thefts and burglaries to take place. Finally, as schools and offices are located far from crowded areas such as shopping areas, students and officers would not suffer from distraction or any attention deficit disorders, fostering work and study productivity.
In conclusion, it undeniable that constructing buildings in different areas has its pros and cons. However, I am more inclined to the benefits this strategy would create in terms of convenience and practicality.
The issue of whether it is more enjoyable for city dwellers to have buildings relocated into specific
areas
or not remains a source of controversy. While there is a strong case for the latter view, I am more inclined to the former.
On the one hand, those against mass construction of offices, schools, shops and homes in
seperated
areas
may state their reasons as follows. The
first
and foremost explanation would be the difficulties in travel arrangements, making citizens consume a considerable amount of time.
For example
, metropolitan parents will find it inconvenient to travel between schools and offices in order to pick up their children after classes.
Moreover
, it is
also
believed that this strategy can cause traffic congestion during peak time due to long-distance travel.
On the other hand
, I would advocate with those who contend that this new urban design would bring three obvious advantages.
First of all
, this provides citizens greater convenience if we want to access a specific
area
for a single purpose.
For example
, whenever we go shopping, we can
easily
get
around to
purchase
whatever we want without travelling to
different
destinations. Another noticeable benefit of this policy would be a more secure living environment, which can
be considered
as a deterrent against crimes. With the shops
are located
far from private
houses
, it is unlikely for thefts and burglaries to take place.
Finally
, as schools and offices
are located
far from crowded
areas
such as shopping
areas
, students and officers would not suffer from distraction or any attention deficit disorders, fostering work and study productivity.
In conclusion
,
it
undeniable that constructing buildings in
different
areas
has its pros and cons.
However
, I am more inclined to the benefits this strategy would create in terms of convenience and practicality.