Some people think that vertical city is the best, where people live and work in tall buildings. Others think that horizontal city is better, where there are few tall buildings. Discuss both views and give your opinion. v.2

There has been a significant growth in the number of skyscrapers the world over, particularly in cities. Even though many argue for horizontal development, I believe that vertical expansion is the only possible option in cities for the scarcity of land. Proponents of the traditional type of city may argue that it is a better place to live. The primary reason is that a conventional house with a courtyard and a garden can provide plenty of free space and a sense of freedom to the resident. They believe that with these types of constructions we can establish a harmonious and direct relationship with nature. Furthermore, according to them, a detached and single-storey building offers greater safety in an emergency situation such as natural calamity or fire. However, I believe that vertical building is the only choice in many cities, especially in cosmopolitan cities where there is a big shortage of land. For example, in Mumbai, in India, the housing issues could be solved only by constructing multi-storey buildings as they could efficiently accommodate more people in the limited land area. Secondly, the price of land is enormously high in big cities, and it is far beyond the reach of middle-class and common people. If high rise buildings are constructed, many people could fancy having an apartment well within their financial reach. To summarise, in urban setting vertical development is the best option owing to the scarcity of land. The area thus saved could be better used for entertainment facilities such as parks and museums.