Many countries are experiencing population growth and need to build more homes. Some say that new homes should be constructed in existing cities while others argue that new towns should be built to accommodate the growing population. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these points of view?
A lot of nations are having an increasing population and need to create more residential houses. Some believe that new houses should be placed within existing urban areas while others argue that new towns should be built for more people to live in. While the former approach is a cost and time-efficient solution, the latter allows a larger population to thrive in a better living condition.
On one hand, constructing homes within current city boundaries can be a quick fix to an expanding population. Necessary amenities like schools and hospitals are readily available. Electricity and water supply networks are already laid for new buildings. The transportation of labor and construction materials will be less costly and time consuming since the city has well-established transport infrastructure like tunnels and highways. Take Sydney for example, where the government prioritizes setting up residential districts in proximity to commercial areas to minimize costs and maximize return.
On the other hand, building a new town for more people can create a better environment for its residents. This is because developing a new piece of land offers more flexibility in planning. Building clusters can be spread further apart for more recreational space and facilities like parks and sports complexes. The population density can be maintained at a low level even with a booming population. The livelihood of the people can be improved as they compete less for resources. For instance, waiting time for medical services is relatively short in newly developed regions, which is important for health-conscious individuals like the elderly.
In conclusion, building new houses in the city is an efficient solution while building a new town can provide quality living space.
A lot of nations are having an increasing population and need to create more residential houses. Some believe that new houses should be placed within existing urban areas while others argue that new towns should be built for more people to live in. While the former approach is a cost and time-efficient solution, the latter allows a larger population to thrive in a better living condition.
On one hand, constructing homes within current city boundaries can be a quick fix to an expanding population. Necessary amenities like schools and hospitals are readily available. Electricity and water supply networks are already laid for new buildings. The transportation of labor and construction materials will be less costly and time consuming since the city has well-established transport infrastructure like tunnels and highways. Take Sydney for example, where the government prioritizes setting up residential districts in proximity to commercial areas to minimize costs and maximize return.
On the other hand, building a new town for more people can create a better environment for its residents. This is because developing a new piece of land offers more flexibility in planning. Building clusters can be spread further apart for more recreational space and facilities like parks and sports complexes. The population density can be maintained at a low level even with a booming population. The livelihood of the people can be improved as they compete less for resources. For instance, waiting time for medical services is relatively short in newly developed regions, which is important for health-conscious individuals like the elderly.
In conclusion, building new houses in the city is an efficient solution while building a new town can provide quality living space.
