Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. Which solution is better? hay nhất giúp bạn có thêm tài liệu tham khảo để viết bài luận bằng Tiếng Anh hay hơn.

Đề bài: Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. Which solution is better?

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 1

In this day and age, increasing attention is being directed towards the question of whether residential areas should be developed through the construction of apartments or ground-level houses. While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of sustainable urban growth, personally, I believe that both options have their own merits and can be implemented by authorities depending on specific situations.

On one hand, some cities choose to build taller buildings to fit more people, which has its own benefits. Firstly, it allows cities to maximize land use efficiency, particularly in densely populated urban areas where space is limited. In fact, by going vertical, cities can accommodate more residents, businesses, and amenities within a smaller footprint, thereby reducing urban sprawl and preserving natural landscapes. For example, Hong Kong exemplifies efficient land use through vertical development due to its high population density and limited space. Secondly, tall buildings can serve as iconic landmarks that define a city's skyline and contribute to its identity and reputation on a global scale. Architectural marvels such as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai or the Empire State Building in New York City not only attract tourists but also symbolize economic prowess and innovation.

On the other hand, some cities have decided to spread out by building on wider areas of land, which also comes with its own advantages. First of all, sprawling cities have more room for green spaces, parks, and recreational facilities, which can enhance the quality of life and promote physical and mental well-being among residents. Singapore, known as "A City in a Garden," showcases the successful integration of extensive green spaces throughout its urban landscape, including iconic attractions like Gardens by the Bay, contributing to improved quality of life by regulating temperature, reducing pollution, and promoting physical and mental well-being for residents. Additionally, horizontal development allows for more diverse housing options, catering to a broader range of socioeconomic backgrounds. With lower population densities, traffic congestion and air pollution may be less severe, and public services such as schools, hospitals, and utilities may be more easily accessible to residents.

In conclusion, while both vertical and horizontal development strategies have their merits, the choice between them should be made based on careful consideration of factors such as population density, land availability, environmental impact, and community needs.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 2

Many cities today are expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. In my opinion, this can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than encouraging urban sprawl.

Some would argue that tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers better quality of life. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above. Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of satisfaction and many ‘transplants’ move to such cities because of the better living standards.

However, those in favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for the area around a city. It is often hard to check the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way. Pristine natural lands can be designated as national parks. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times. This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large metropolises.

In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions, but taller cities make more sense in the modern world. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 3

Rapid urbanization has been a global phenomenon for long, which has caused a serious concern over housing expansion. While some cities tackle this by constructing taller buildings, expanding the area for housing is what other cities adopt. This essay will discuss both of these perspectives in city development before giving my final verdict.

Building housing areas with taller buildings will bring about certain benefits. The most obvious one is that this practice can solve the problem of land scarcity. As more and more people are flocking to cities, the land area required for housing is also ever-increasing. In this case, taller buildings emerge as an optimal remedy because they can accommodate a large number of dwellers yet take up a not too huge area. This can be exemplified by Manhattan in New York city where a multitude of tall apartments have been constructed to furnish this megacity with sufficient housing. Secondly, people living in tall buildings can have a more convenient life. It is because manifold city apartments incorporate various amenities ranging from supermarkets, playgrounds to gyms, pools or banks in the same building. With these services being within walking distance, city dwellers can enjoy different services without much difficulty.

Nevertheless, building houses on a wider area of land also offers considerable merits. To begin with, this city development direction correlates with a more comfortable life for the inhabitants. When growing in this way, the cities can provide houses with wider space, which means that city dwellers can have more privacy and build their houses in accordance with their preferences. For instance, Los Angeles has been expanded in this way, bringing higher living standards to its dwellers since these people can relish better privacy and design their own housing space like having gardens, building pools, making their lives much cozier and more satisfying. Furthermore, expanding housing areas serves as an antidote to overcrowded city centers. Should housing areas like tall apartments be concentrated on just the downtown area, the city center will be overwhelmed with people and other ensuing problems like traffic congestion, overload of public services namely electricity, healthcare and education. Therefore, building houses on a wider area will disperse the population density, augmenting the living quality as well as divesting city centers of the overcrowding issues.

In conclusion, both policies can prove their worth depending on specific circumstances of different cities. Hence, it is imperative that city planners should be flexible in deciding on what solutions to be put into practice for the sake of sustainable urban development.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 4

The idea of whether to construct a city vertically with skyscrapers or have a horizontal expansion has always been a thorny dilemma. From my perspective, despite several merits that the latter model can offer, cities with vertical construction development prove to bring more significant benefits.

Advocates of horizontal cities often cite the space and privacy of detached houses as solid examples of the great experience that a lateral expansion can offer. When it comes to space, separate dwellings bring along with them distinct amenities such as a lush garden for nature lovers or a spacious yard that perfectly serves the households in need of a playground for their children. Besides, privacy seekers certainly favor separate houses over apartments in a high-rise building due to less noise disturbance from neighbors next door or even upstairs. However, given the burgeoning population in urban areas nowadays, hardly any city can provide enough space for building houses. Even with the policy to expand current land to the suburbs, such extension may never meet the ever-increasing demand for accommodation in metropolises. On top of that, living in a dispersed city is tantamount to more travelling by private vehicles, which will compound the air contamination and trigger more respiratory diseases among city dwellers.

The alternative of erecting multi-storey buildings does not just mitigate the problems arising from horizontally constructed cities, it also brings many significant benefits. Firstly, high-rise buildings prove an optimal solution to the dearth of land to accommodate the acceleration of urban population. One skyscraper which can provide dwellings for hundreds of residents occupies only a fraction of the land that would otherwise be used to erect houses for the same number of people. In addition, living in a complex equipped with myriad facilities such as offices, department stores, and recreational centers will considerably lessen travelling necessities. This not only helps reduce the volume of traffic in the city, and thus alleviating air pollution, but also offers immense convenience to the dwellers as they can get everything within walking distance of one building. As for young adults on a tight schedule, this option seems far more favorable than the idea of living in a house.

In conclusion, although some people may prefer to live in houses due to a number of advantages, tall buildings have much more to offer, from addressing some of the most pressing problems in urban areas to creating more convenience for the residents.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 5

While the government in a number of cities decide to construct high-rise buildings to provide housing for their citizens, that in other cities expand their housing areas horizontally. In my opinion, building a vertical city is a better option because it makes better use of land, a limited resource on the planet, and it is also more eco-friendly than a horizontal one.

A vertical city can better optimize land use because land on earth will not grow any bigger, while the human population is ever-increasing. If tall apartments are erected and chosen as a place of residence, a unit of land can accommodate a larger number of residents. For instance, instead of allocating 100 miles square of land for the construction of houses for a population of only 100 households, the government can provide accommodation for ten times as many when constructing a ten-story apartment. Then, more land can be available for other purposes, such as cultivating crops to meet the growing food demands or expanding streets to alleviate traffic congestion, which can address critical issues associated with overpopulation.

Meanwhile, housing areas enlarged in a horizontal direction place a high pressure on the environment and people’s life. As a result of the increasing population of humans, wildlands may be encroached to make room for residential areas. For example, in Brazil, a major part of forests is cleared to build more houses for citizens, which not only endangers wildlife but also puts human civilization at higher risk of natural disasters. With narrowed forests, floods and droughts have taken place more often, damaging agriculture, the economy and other important sectors of this country.

In conclusion, employing the same area of land, vertical cities can house more citizens than horizontal cities which are not only environmentally damaging but also unsustainable in the long run. Personally, municipal leaders should develop their city in a vertical way as soon as possible.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 6

Creating good housing areas has always been a major concern for urban planners. Some cities build taller buildings to accommodate their growing population, while others opt to spread their housing areas out horizontally. This essay will explore the advantages of both approaches to decide which one is more appropriate.

Expanding vertically is a popular choice in many cities for there is little impact on the surrounding areas. Many cities nowadays are surrounded by farmland. If we choose the second solution, there will be an expansion of urban areas, which means agricultural land will have to be removed or replaced. However, these areas are responsible for food production and provision for the region around them, including the city itself, meaning that there could be problems with food security.

The second choice, on the other hand, also has its advantages. Building higher buildings will certainly increase the population density, which will put a burden on the existing infrastructure of the city. As more people move to these housing areas, roadways will be more and more crowded. Public transport systems will also be under more pressure.  Take Hanoi as an example. In recent years, when an increased number of people relocated to the city for better job opportunities, many new apartment blocks, invariably close to the city center, were built to meet the housing needs. As a result, the traffic problem is exacerbated, and buses are always packed with passengers.

In my view, the latter approach to urban planning makes more logical sense. Ensuring food security is possible through other means and can be done by replacing the lost farmland with vertical farming, a solution Singapore has successfully implemented. This is much cheaper than building more and wider roads, which is almost impossible since that would mean the city has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

In conclusion, while building taller buildings does not influence agriculture, it creates several problems that are difficult to solve. Therefore, building houses across a wider area of land, in my opinion, seems more sensible.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 7

While authorities in some urban centers opt to erect skyscrapers to provide housing for their populace, others opt to expand residential zones horizontally. From my perspective, erecting a vertical city presents a superior choice as it optimizes land usage, a finite resource on our planet, and is also more environmentally friendly compared to horizontal expansion.

A vertical metropolis can enhance land utilization effectively because terrestrial space cannot expand, whereas the human populace is ever burgeoning. Opting for towering apartment complexes as habitation can accommodate a larger populace per unit of land. For example, instead of earmarking 100 square miles of land for housing 100 households, authorities can accommodate tenfold more by erecting a ten-story apartment complex. This frees up more land for diverse purposes, such as agricultural cultivation to meet escalating food demands or broadening thoroughfares to alleviate traffic congestion, thereby mitigating critical issues linked to overpopulation.

Conversely, horizontally sprawling residential zones exert significant pressure on the environment and human livelihoods. Due to burgeoning human numbers, wilderness areas may be encroached upon to make way for residential development. For instance, in Brazil, extensive swathes of forests are cleared to accommodate burgeoning urban populations, jeopardizing wildlife and exacerbating the risk of natural calamities. Diminished forests contribute to increased instances of floods and droughts, wreaking havoc on agriculture, the economy, and other vital sectors in the country.

In summation, utilizing the same land area, vertical cities can house a greater populace compared to horizontal counterparts, which not only inflict environmental harm but are also unsustainable in the long term. Personally, civic leaders should expedite the vertical development of their cities.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on - mẫu 8

To provide additional housing, some cities construct high-rise buildings while other cities develop land in extensive areas. In my opinion, the latter approach is the best way to solve the housing problem because land in wide areas is usually inexpensive. Besides, high-rise construction can be very costly.

Land in wide areas is relatively low-priced. Only the suburbs of a city have very large parcels of land available for real estate development, and these multi-hectare parcels are generally far cheaper than even one hectare of land in the city center. Lower land prices mean cheaper homes. For example, the average home value in the suburbs of Beijing is 17,000 yuan per square meter versus 58,000 yuan in the city center. Affordable homes are the key to solving the housing crisis because they are exactly what people with low incomes need.

In addition, the higher a building rises, the more expensive the construction is. It takes top architects, high technologies, and reinforcing steel to build residential skyscrapers, and these things can cost a great deal of money. That is to say, these skyscrapers are not where low-income households can afford to live. For instance, about one in four high-rise apartments in New York City sit unsold, while tens of thousands of citizens are homeless. In comparison, low-rise buildings are much cheaper to construct and therefore a much better solution to the affordable housing crisis.

In conclusion, building on extensive areas of land is the optimal method to address the housing problem. For one thing, land in these areas tends to be cheaper and, for another, high-rise construction can be very expensive.

Xem thêm các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay khác:

• When a new town is planned, it is more important to develop public parks and sports facilities than shopping centers for people to spend their free time in. To what extent do agree or disagree?

• With the growing population in cities, more and more people live in a home with small or no outdoor areas. Is it a positive or negative development?

• Cyclists and car drivers sharing the same road might cause some problems. What are the problems? What could be done to solve those problems?

• Today, TV channels provide more men’s sports shows than women’s sport shows. Why? Should TV channels give equal time for women’s sport and men’s sport?

• Scientists say that in the future humanity will speak the same language. Do you think this is a positive or negative social development?

---