The relentless expansion of urban landscapes has resulted in various opinions regarding whether living in a horizontal city with fewer tall buildings is better or whether living in cities surrounded by numerous skyscrapers is an optimal choice. While I may acknowledge the logic behind the former view, I am still strongly in favor of the latter.
Advocates of low-rise buildings may ground their arguments in the merit of security. They assume that living in detached houses would be so far safer than high-rise apartment complexes thanks to their simple structures. To elucidate, when major conflagrations suddenly occur, fighting fire is probably a massive task because not all buildings offer an effective evacuation plan and sufficient escape routes, jeopardizing the lives of innocent occupants. Furthermore, concerning mega-structures which are vulnerable to natural disasters, thereby not being able to put up with terrible earthquakes or hurricanes. The consequences we would bear may be extremely hazardous, especially the loss of people.
Nevertheless, I still believe that living in a vertical city would be a feasible approach due to the context of housing shortage and deforestation. Compared to low-rise buildings, skyscrapers make efficient use of space, hence they can accommodate a numerous number of inhabitants, which enables the government to tackle the problem of increased demands for accommodations. Equally important, high-rise buildings also contribute to protecting our environment. This is because vertical buildings can offer built-in amenities, which horizontal buildings require many forests to create, without the needs of forests. Consequently, our environment can be preserved and evolve sustainably.
In conclusion, I assert that the development of high-rise buildings should be allowed for the time being because it assists with tackling challenges of land use and forest loss, despite the minor benefit that horizontal model provides residents.