There is an ongoing debate whether it is more advantageous to settle and pursue a job in a skyscraper-dominated city, in comparison with a suburban-style city. I will outline the reasons for both perspectives before including my own view.
On the one hand, dwelling and employment in high-density urban areas can help maximize efficiency, and the modern infrastructure of such places has many benefits. It is more convenient for residents to commute between their homes and workplaces, especially when offices, services and housing are located in the same district, added to the fact that there is an easier opportunity to install advanced transport systems, such as metros and elevators. As a result, people tend to prefer vertically developed cities over land-extensive ones, as they can enjoy greater convenience and improved work-life balance with a high access to public transportation.
On the other hand, proponents of suburban-oriented cities have compelling reasons for favoring low-density developments, including a better quality of life and a stronger sense of community. Individuals can benefit from low-rise towns, having more open space, sunlight and fresh air, also appreciating the interactions with others in the neighborhoods. Take Paris as an instance, the structure of the sprawl-based buildings attracts the residents to take up activities such as walking or strolling in refreshing air, which often cannot be observed in densely built metropolises, which contributes to better physical health than those living in high-rise urban areas. Consequently, this encourages many to have their residence in an urban environment dominated by detached housing.
In my point of view, the advantages of residing and being employed in an area characterized by low-rise development outweigh that of tall-building cities. I believe that residents’ health and social interactions with neighbors are more important than the convenience offered by tall-building cities.