The population increases every year, but the land cannot rise, so the problem of building long-term and solid housing is of great concern to the government and the people.

Nowadays, almost everyone is concerned about finding a place to stay these days, as property costs are rapidly rising, particularly in large urban areas. While some may argue that the elements of speed and cost should be emphasised, I think that a structure designed for human occupancy should last as long as possible. On the one hand, the proponents of offering low-cost, quickly constructed housing or apartments argue that such structures should not be a burden for every member of society who are directly affected by major events like unemployment or economic instability. Certainly, the cost of living in many cities has risen dramatically in recent decades, and most individuals would be happier if they could pay off loans for a more inexpensive home or apartment. It is more preferable for these people to have a decently priced home than to remain homeless. On the other hand, I suppose that such critical qualities should be built to survive as long as possible, which could be a true cost-cutting strategy in the long term. Supporters of this opinion argue that buying cheap housing could end up costing a lot of money in the long run owing to poor construction quality and the strong possibility of buying another similar home. As a result, it appears that making an initial investment in a quality location to stay may help people who are concerned in the long run. To summarize, I believe that the high initial cost of houses or flats may outweigh the short-term benefits of cheaper and faster accommodations.