The relentless proliferation of metropolises across the globe has sparked an ongoing debate about the quality of urban life. It is argued that the socio-economic opportunities and public amenities in cities make them preferable, whereas some believe that the traffic congestion, exorbitant costs of living and social alienation present overwhelming disadvantages. The essay will examine both views, until concluding to the overweighting advantages of living in a metropolis.
On the one hand, living in an urban area can save your time, can be more safe to live and have a lot of public amenities. For example, in case you live far from the city but you have a job here you have to commute every day for about an hour just to get to the work place. Talking about safety, big cities such as Paris, Seoul and Almaty often have the security cameras all around the city, therefore, it is safe to live there. Finally, in the developed areas, public amenities are the common things. For instance, there can be seen a lot of parks, public swimming pools and so on thanks to the developing of infrastructure.
However, there are some disadvantages of it. Living in a city can be harmful for some individuals with asthma, because of the polluted air that can usually be seen in large metropolises. Most of the cities are built in places where there used to be a forests that had experienced deforestation, thereby exacerbating the air that we breathe with.
I personally think that nowadays everyone should live in a city or at least the government should revitalize the outskirts of the city, because in a very short time they will experience the urban sprawl anyway.
In conclusion, while urban life undoubtedly presents challenges such as exorbitant costs and social alienation, it also offers unparalleled opportunities in the form of robust infrastructure and vibrant cultural hubs.