some cities create housing in taller buildings while other develop in wider space. What solution is better

In some urban areas, accommodations are made available by constructing high rise buildings, however, others prefer to horizontal structures. Notwithstanding, this discourse drives into both methods and concludes that the former approach is preferable due to its environmental friendliness. Apparently, cosmopolitan zones opting for sky scrappers have some validations to support their ground. They point out that it is the best way to limit the number of land hectares used for housing purposes. Put differently, it helps to prevent deforestation and incessant clearing of bushes for housing consequently, the environment is conserved and encroachment to heritage sites is minimized. Take such country as Sydney, for instance, they have the evergreen environment and lots of heritage centres where tourists visit, this was only made possible because their numerous vertical houses which are capable of providing shelter to many of her residents. Therefore the solution to the ever-growing population in the face of depleting environments is definitely resorting to higher story edifices. On the contrary, those who build houses on a wider plot of land probably believe that it is the only way to ensure comfort. In this kind of town planning method, smaller buildings such as bungalows are scattered over a large land area, and as such the inhabitants have large areas for recreational activities, car parks, and gardening. Nevertheless, they fail to consider the aftermath of their action to the surroundings. Personally, I consent to the hilt that high rise buildings are better because, with that, our trees, plants, and animal habitats and historic sites are safeguarded. In conclusion, having explored both vantage points, nonetheless, it reiterates that providing taller buildings is undoubtedly the better building pattern because it aids to protect the habitat.