Nowadays, people are migrating from the underdeveloped cities to the developed ones for reasons like work and status. It is considered by some that living in a vertical city, which means a city where buildings and offices are apart, is better to live and work rather than living in a horizontal city where bungalows and communities are there. In my view, vertical city would be a perfect choice due to a wide range of opportunities, better lifestyle and variety of people.
Firstly, tall-sized buildings are constructed from a very small proportion of land, which leads to efficient use of land with less damage to environment. Moreover, such huge spaces accommodate huge population. As a result, individuals get exposed to different groups who are highly qualified. Secondly, these skyscrapers have multiple companies under one roof, hence leading to networking and innovation. For instance, a city like Mumbai in India have made hubs for small companies with many floors and providing wider spaces for their employees to work. During breaks, employees meet in the lobby, provide a way to communicate and network. Lastly, their vertical sites provide n number of amenities and easy access to public transport as they are built few miles away from bus, trains or metros.
Alternatively, it is argued that horizontal cities are better. These places provide the advantages of less crowded roads, low pollution and close to the nature. Individuals can enjoy the scenic view of such areas with a better quality of air and no noise of the surroundings. On the other hand, high percentage of land is used, thus leading to deforestation. Nevertheless, people can construct thei bungalows in their own way with having a private terrace.
To conclude, there are advantages of both the types, vertical and horizontal. I believe that living in a horizontal city enhances future growth, high-end workplaces and more facilities.
Give me bands ielts essay task 2