One school of thought holds that living in a low-rise city is ideal, while others believe it would be in high-rise buildings. In this essay, I will closely examine both viewpoints before concluding that iI agree with the latter.
On the one hand, settling in a sprawling city can offer both environmental and safety advantages for residents. When it comes to environment, in horizontal urban, citizens often live in houses rather than apartments. Because of that, available land will be used to construct backyards, children’s playgrounds or small gardens for cultivating plants. Therefore, it will not only create a clearer and more spacious atmosphere but also a chance to get closer to nature. Moreover, regarding some emergency situations such as: fires or thefts, it will be easier to seek assistance from neighbors or evacuate to the safety zone.
On the other hand, vertical metropolises present greater benefits for the long-term living. First and foremost, unlike the low-rise one, a high-rise city is dominated by numerous tall buildings and skyscrapers, which can house thousands of households. This will address the issue of land scarcity, accommodating the growing population and making way for more parks or conservation places. Furthermore, these type of buildings often integrate commercial and recreational facilities such as: restaurants, shopping malls or leisure areas. As a result, residents can save time on commuting to another places. For example, Ecopark, a mixed-used development in VietNam, where residents can entertain, go shopping or dine within a single place.
In conclusion, while the low-rise urban offer certain advantages, I still believe that the high-rise ones can solve the shortage of land and create a convenient life for their residents.