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

this

day and age, more and more contemporary attention has been placed on whether it is better to provide housing by constructing more high-rise

buildings

, or by erecting houses on wider sites in urban areas. In

this

essay, I will compare the merits of both solutions and state my own opinion. On the one hand, the provision of multi-storey structures is beneficial from an economic perspective.

To begin

with, high-rise

buildings

can meet the increasing demands of housing these days. Compared to their low-rise counterparts, these

buildings

can accommodate a denser population of a metropolis. Now that more and more people are moving into a certain territory, the housing authorities will not have to deal with extra infrastructure costs.

In addition

,

this

architectural style helps save a considerable amount of land so that the remains can be used for other economic purposes.

On the other hand

, when it comes to matters of safety, the benefits of horizontal houses might surpass vertical ones. To be more specific, thanks to the strong foundation and less heavy load, residents of low

buildings

are less likely to suffer serious catastrophic devastation caused by natural disasters

such

as hurricanes or earthquakes.

Additionally

, when choosing an area to reside, homeowners have a tendency to consider the ability to escape from emergencies

such

as fires and floods. Imagine the unwanted situation when elevators are shut down, stairs are inaccessible, and inhabitants are stranded on the top floors of a skyscraper. With these being said, high-rise skyscrapers are proved to be much more dangerous for their inhabitants than smaller houses. In conclusion, as discussed above, I hold a firm belief that both types of housing provision are advantageous as they solve specific issues.