In daily life, as the number of people in cities increases, many places choose to build tall buildings. However, some cities decide to build houses that spread across the land. While both approaches have their own merits, I believe that building on wider areas of land is the better solution in most situations.
On the one hand, proponents of building on wider land argue that it offers several significant advantages. Firstly, it enhances living conditions because low-rise housing often provides more natural light, better ventilation, and greater privacy than tall buildings. For example, a person living in a house would enjoy more privacy than someone living in a high-rise apartment block. Secondly, living in a house is less overcrowded, which can help avoid long lines for elevators and reduce the risk in case of a fire. Moreover, houses built on wider land offer more space for families, especially those living with grandparents. For example, houses may include gardens, yards, or play areas, which are ideal for families with children. Therefore, it is understandable why many people support this approach.
On the other hand, supporters of building tall apartment blocks claim that it is more effective in the long term. However, I believe it may come with more risks compared to living in a house. For example, tall buildings can be damaged during an earthquake or pose greater danger in case of a fire. Moreover, living in high-rise buildings can be noisy due to the large number of people, and residents may not be able to enjoy their personal space or may often be disturbed by others.
In conclusion, both solutions—building houses on wider land and constructing tall buildings—present valid points for addressing the growing population. However, I firmly believe that building on wider land is the more suitable option because it enhances living space and provides more privacy. Ultimately, the most effective approach may depend on the specific context in which it is applied.