The government in a number of cities decide to construct high-rise buildings to provide houses for their growing citizens, while other cities expand their housing areas horizontally. Personally, I hold the perspective that erecting a vertical city has more benefits due to the better usage of land as well as being more eco-friendly than a horizontal one.
It is reasonable to assume there are reasons why constructing a horizontal city is prevalent in some cities, including lower population density. Where the houses are built on wider land areas, there is more space between each property. Consequently, people in these areas are not disturbed and become private, such as creating a quieter living environment. Furthermore, the traffic jams and congestion situations are reduced; therefore, the residents feel safe about their well-being and a lower concentration as well as shortening commute time and easing the stress on the infrastructure.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a vertical city provides the efficiency of land usage due to stacking multiple facilities vertically. An appropriate example is the residential or commercial buildings, which are often constructed vertically for moving convenience. Additionally, one could also protect the environment by limiting horizontal sprawl. It is no stranger that the preservation of natural habitats and the balance between urban development and environment conservation are improved.
In conclusion, although the decision to construct housing by building on wider areas of land is a good solution, I firmly support the view that a vertical city has more advantages.