some cities create extra housing by building tall buildings. Other cities do this by building on wide areas of land. which do you think is best solution to problem of housing?

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 fields is relatively low-priced. Only the suburbs of a

city

have very large parcels of ground available for real estate development, and these multi-hectare parcels are generally far cheaper than even one hectare of

land

in the

city

centre. Lower continent 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

centre. 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 space of

land

is the optimal method to address the housing problem. For one thing, plot in these space tends to be cheaper and, for another, high-rise construction can be very expensive.