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?

In the metropolitan

areas

, everywhere we look, we see the mirrors of the skyscrapers. These types of buildings give a modern vibe to the

cities

and represent a solution for the big

number

of

population

. Some skyscrapers overcome 100 floors, providing a big

number

of apartments and office

areas

for businesses. In my opinion, the taller buildings are not so elegant looking and not so welcoming, but are very good for housing purposes. In the smaller

cities

and villages, the

houses

are placed on a wider area of land.

This

fact is possible because the

population

percentage is lower in these

areas

. In most cases, the

houses

have a garden and an area of land in the back of the house that has agricultural purposes. Each country has its own specific architecture. In Romania,

for example

, the

houses

are small and are painted in vibrant colours.

On the other hand

, the

houses

in England have a gothic vibe. In my opinion, I think no solution is better than the other. The big

cities

need a big

number

of

houses

for the

population

in order to provide

a

Remove the article

apply

show examples

sufficient housing to the high demand for buildings. The

areas

with a small percentage of the

population

can build

houses

on a wider area of land. In the smaller

cities

, there is no demand for the places destined for business purposes, corporations, a big

number

of habitats. The smaller

cities

and the villages are not expanding, compared with the big

cities

where a new skyscraper is built every day by a new investor. The smaller

cities

are slower paced, present more family businesses and people that live in the same

houses

generation after generation.