tall building or build on wider area which is better

In today’s world, many cities are facing the problem of housing shortage. While some people prefer building high-rise apartment blocks due to several benefits, I would argue that a horizontal city is a better solution. Admittedly, a vertical city has decided advantages pertaining to housing prices. It is a fact that a great influx of rural people migrate to metropolitan areas to seek their fortune. This brings about the increase of population density accompanied by the rising demand for accommodation. Housing prices soar to the point that is beyond the financial ability of a bourgeois family. An inevitable consequence is that many have to rent accommodation. Housing rental may consume a large share of their income and lower their living quality. By constructing skyscrapers, the government can provide more houses and control housing prices effectively to increase the homeownership rate in large cities. Despite the valid argument detailed above, I believe that a horizontal city is better because it reduces traffic jam. In a vertical city, congestion occurs almost everywhere and dwellers have to face that perennial problem day after day. While in wider areas, people are not assembled in a small space so overcrowding hardly happens. Living in the suburbs and rural areas also help lower population density in big cities and reduce burden on urban infrastructure. Furthermore, population dispersion allows the authorities to have more land to upgrade public facilities such as expanding the road system, building more schools and hospitals. Consequently, the problems of congestion and overcrowding is minimized hence improving dwellers’ living quality. To conclude, I firmly hold the view that building houses on wide area of land is a better remedy for city planning. The dispersal of people is of chief importance for improving infrastructure and traffic flow as mentioned above.