There have been conflicting views on wether high-rise buildings provide additional housing or buildings covering vast land does. In my opinion, the latter approch is the best way to solve the housing problem because Land in wide areas is usually inexpensive.Besides, high-rise construction can be very costly.
Land in wide areas in relatively low-priced. Only the suburbs of a city have very large parcels of land available for real estate development, and there multi-hectare parcels are generally for cheaper than even one hectare of land in the city center. Lower land prices means cheaper homes. For example, the average home value in the suburbs of Dhaka is 30,000 taka per square meter while in the city center it costs almost 70,000 taka. Affordable homes are the way to solving the housing crisis because they are exactly what lower income people needed.
In addition, the higher a building rises, the more expensive the construction becomes. Without a top level architect, a high rise building can not be made, and high technologies steel with best attachments may cause a huge amount of money. For instance, sits remain unsold in every one in four high rise buildings in New York while ten thousands of citizens are homeless there. However, low-rise buildings are much affordable to every citizen and therefore a much better solution to the housing crisis.
In conclusion, building on extensive areas of land will not only be the solution to housing problem but also benefit lower to middle income people, while costing for high rise building goes over the head of them.