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

As the population in the world is increasing significantly, providing enough accommodations is necessary. Some regions choose to build skyscrapers to save

space

, whilst the others want to create individuals' houses on a large area of land. Whichever decision the governments make, it depends on the conditions of their countries. The

first

solution we have is

making

Suggestion

made

taller buildings. These high-rise towers not only provide multiple homes, but

also

can save

space

. With a reasonable price compared to a whole house, a small flat is more economical and convenient for either a family or an individual. It is a more beneficial way for regions having little

space but

Accept comma addition

space, but

crowded populations, like business centres.

On the contrary

, there are

also

disadvantages. Many people live in one place, but go to work or study at the same time will easily lead to congestions and along with

that is

polluting.

For example

, traffic jams and air pollution often occur in regions full of apartment buildings like Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City. The

second

solution is to create individual houses on a wide-ranging land. The benefits are clear: more open

space

, higher quality of infrastructure, and more freedom. It

also

helps in reducing air pollution, with congestions rarely happen. People feel more independent living in a house than in a studio apartment.

However

,

this

solution can only apply to countries that have enormous areas,

such

as America or Canada, because they have enough

space

to build houses yet still provide enough accommodations for their citizens. In conclusion, both solutions have their pros and cons, and it is impossible to point out which one is better, though it depends on each region and their government.