Some say it is better to have vertical cities with lots of tall buildings rather than horizontal cities with fewer tall buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many cities nowadays are expanding upward with the escalation in occupants. While some argue such a growth is best, others believe that horizontal cities are more beneficial. Personally, I agree with the fact that verticals cities are more advantageous than horizontal ones. Living compactly in high-rise buildings helps the environment. With all the amenities and services available closely, and home and workplace located nearby to each other, it sustains resources as one won't have to commute everyday, for instance, as in New York. If this was not the case, with people spreading to different places, it would have affected not only the wilderness but also would have increased pollution in the city. Clearly, although having separate dwellings may feel good to individuals, living in skyscrapers proves to be a better choice. On the other hand, there are some merits of residing in widespread manner too. Having a house of our own and getting to live closer to the ground, gives a sense of security and safety, as it'd make the escape easy at the time of emergencies, which would otherwise have been troublesome in case of multistory buildings. One such example could be of Oslo, instead of buying apartments, many prefer to get a house of their own. In conclusion, it is not a good option to settle in private houses at the cost of nature. Rather, being resident in tall buildings in vertical cities proves to be more advantageous, not only for human beings when it comes to availability of facilities and services at ease but also for the environment.