With the increasing population in urban areas, several cities have opted to provide accommodation in taller or larger structures. Although both strategies have their benefits and drawbacks, I would argue that either of them is entirely comprehensive and should be combined to create a diverse and balanced living environment.
On the one hand, supporters of vertical-growth buildings often argue that these structures are suitable for densely-populated areas, where available urban spaces are limited. By constructing/stacking more floors on top of each other, the government could accommodate more city-dwellers within a smaller unit of land, thus maximizing land use for housing. In addition to that, this style of architecture is more centralized compared to that of houses in a widespread area. This means that water supply, electricity, and other utilities can be all concentrated within one building, which can reduce the cost of installation and maintenance for the entire household. While this approach may seem reasonable, the height of the building poses a potential safety threat to residents. In certain circumstances when evacuation is needed, such as a fire or natural disaster, it would be a daunting task for people who reside on higher floors to escape to the ground.
On the other hand, adherents of a decentralized network of houses also cite several benefits to citizens. Firstly, each building is given a vast area of land, creating more personal space and privacy within the property instead of living closely as a community in taller buildings. Therefore, this type of accommodation is particularly appealing to individuals and families who prefer a more secluded living place. Furthermore, people can tailor their houses to various sustainable architectural styles and construction materials, which can result in a varied and interesting cityscape. Nevertheless, this expansive housing system might consume tremendous urban areas, providing fewer spaces for other amenities, including parks, schools, and other public facilities that contribute to the community.
In conclusion, while these solutions seem ideal when implemented separately, I am adamant that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for housing in cities. Governments should combine different methods together to create a more holistic and effective approach.