It is sometimes asserted that replacing large companies, factories and workforces can help reduce traffic and housing issues in most urban areas. I mostly disagree with this assertion because there is a wide range of effective solutions that the government can implement to tackle these problems.
On the one hand, the movement of industrial zones to the countryside may have several merits. The immediate benefit can be seen in the increase of housing square footage and a decrease in traffic congestion. To be more specific, the industrial sites and workers’ apartments may be destroyed to make way for housing accommodation and more recreational development . Moreover, people may avoid dealing with traffic jams in the peak hours and commute smoothly . As a result, citizens, in particular, will receive a high quality of living.
On the other hand, I mainly believe that the government might have other effective ways to solve the problems without relocating industrial zones. Firstly, using government sponsorship for urban planning is a great way because it involves developing infrastructure as well as resulting in efficient transportation networks. For example, a large amount of money can be spent on enhancing housing areas, designing transportation networks, and building mixed-use construction in inner-city. Secondly, the government can launch a campaign of raising awareness for residents about the benefits of public transports and also encouraging alternative commuting methods such as travelling by buses, trains with the aim of lessening the number of vehicles on the road.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that increasing public’s awareness and allocating subsidies are more effective and sustainable solutions. From my perspective, the existence between the sustainable development of many companies and factories and the high standard of resident’s living can be seen in the future.