With the advancement of society, constantly increasing population in city areas led to burden on accommodation. To handle this phenomenon there are numerous opinions that argue building skyscrapers would be a viable method; however, I strongly perceive that encouraging inhabitants to transition to the rural areas could be an optimally greater choice.
On the one hand, erecting more high apartment buildings is known as a consensus choice by a vast number of citizens. In fact, millions of people argued that high towers normally are able to accommodate thousands of inhabitants in smaller scales, thus alleviating the housing demand in urban areas. Take a billion inhabited country, China, as an example, significant investments in vertical expansion have shown some relief in overcrowded urban regions. Nevertheless, as available land resources for construction become inestimable and financial resources become drained, simply having more skyscrapers may not solve the root causes of overcrowding, thus rendering this option unsustainable in the long run.
Conversely, promoting rural migration offers a more sustainable solution with several advantages. The countryside provides ample spaces for residential developments and offers an alternative to the urban housing crisis. As shown on migrating statistics indicated a significant reduction in urban overcrowding as individuals have a tendency to relocate to suburban areas. Moreover, government initiatives to urge rural relocations, such as financial assistance and employment opportunities, can not only effectively narrow down the pressures of urban accommodation but also encourage a balanced distribution of population between urban and rural areas.
To conclude, while building extensions may be beneficial to certain extents, I am more convinced that the incentive to move to rural regions is a greater solution to overloaded accommodation pressure.