People in every domain are facing groundbreaking innovations, with urbanization being no exception. This has garnered public attention, with people having differing opinions about cities. Although some stress the convenience of horizontal cities, others argue that vertical cities are far better to reside in. While acknowledging the advantages of horizontal settings, I side with the latter for several reasons.
On the one hand, horizontal cities are organized with spread-out and low-rise buildings. Houses usually come with extra yards or gardens, offering personal space and privacy. This gives opportunities to maintain livestock or farming to take a financial advantage. In such cities, air pollution or high waste disposal would be relatively less. However, the main disadvantage of such cities is extended commuting time, which makes it more challenging to access during emergencies like earthquakes and forest fires.
On the other hand, the concept of vertical cities stems from modernism, coupled with excessive emphasis on skyscrapers. It is true that this type of urbanization has become popular in the past few decades, fueled by people increasingly moving to urban areas thanks to easy-to-reach services. Vertical cities are structured with more compact and high-rise buildings to accommodate as many people as possible to save fields for other practices. Not only accessible services does vertical cities offer, but also public transportation is an indispensable part of vertical cities. Hospitals and schools are all within walking distance, along with regular bus service throughout the city.
In my opinion, despite the fact that both types of cities offer numerous opportunities to lead a comfortable life, the latter has dominance over the former. The rationale is that spread-out cities are often considered costly to construct and occupy more land compared to vertical cities. This, in turn, may have far-reaching effects on governments’ budgets because exorbitant prices are yet to surface to maintain long roads and utilities, which takes a longer time. Conversely, vertical cities offer compact buildings with almost the same opportunities, along with economic advantages. For example, such cities may bring businesses and services together, which ensures economic growth.
In conclusion, while both types of cities have pros and cons, I reckon that it is better to live in vertical cities thanks to the opportunities they offer, such as economic growth and easier access to public transportation. As horizontal cities are difficult to reach during emergencies, I advocate for the latter.