In the contemporary era, urban and suburban areas have been a matter of debate, with some advocating for city life, while others believe life in countryside is a far more significant option. In my opinion, I will discuss both merits and demerits of the two regions and assert my firm endorsement of the former perspective.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why life in countryside can be beneficial and detrimental simultaneously. First and foremost, countrysides may cultivate a serene atmosphere, which is the primary reason for individuals to reside in such areas. In other words, as there are fewer recreational avenues, it is likely to be remarkably less noisy than urban life, which in turn cater to those passionate about a peaceful environment. Nonetheless, facilities in suburban regions are not as much modern as those in urban sectors. For example, nowadays suburban medical centres still tend to utilize traditional methods, instead of treating petients with up-to-date equipment. This can hinder people’s experience and health, leading to a decline in living conditions.
On the other hand, city life also holds both positive and negative consequences for valid reasons. To be specific, city life often provides residents with optimal services, including healthcare, education and transportation. As a result, living in downtowns is complementary to all, fulfilling their demands and needs. Hence, those advancements can facilitate everyone’s well-being, resulting in a sustainable society. However, air pollution is the main factor that hinders city life. For instance, exhaust fumes released by factories and private vehicles have contributed to the rise in carbon dioxide, leading to greenhouse effects and the loss of biodiversity.
In conclusion, while both places contain adverse and beneficial outcomes, city life is still a more favorable option. This is because it can create an environment that is complementary to everybody.