[IELTS Writing Task 2]
Some people think that it is best to live in a horizontal city while others think of a vertical city.
In this day and age, there has been an ongoing debate over which is the superior urban planning, horizontal or vertical cities. From a personal perspective, I am inclined to side with living in a city which is developed upwards, although the other school of design may benefit the residents in specific aspects as well.
To commence, proponents of low-rise housing ground their argument in the merit of safety and freedom. Firstly, detached houses are generally safer than high-rise apartments due to the basic nature of each structure, which facilitates the escape from the buildings or victim-seeking process when a fire occurs. Meanwhile, in terms of sky-high constructions, fighting fire is such a daunting task considering not all buildings offer an effective evacuation plan or sufficient escape routes. Moreover, some mega-structures are vulnerable to natural incidents and may not be able to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, jeopardizing the lives of occupants and causing irreversible damage to the neighboring region. The earthquake striking Turkey in February is a salient example, which led to the mortalities of over 20,000 people and the collapse of thousands of high-rises0. Additionally, the spread-out nature of horizontal cities with low population density can provide residents with more access to green and open spaces for communality and a reduced frequency of congestion. Nevertheless, the sprawl of such cities can lead to the loss of natural and agricultural land as forests and pastures are eliminated to make room for housing erection.
In contrast, the cities that are vertically expanded can effectively address the natural resource depletion by combining recreational parks or shopping malls as built-in amenities, not to mention other amusement services in the proximity, hence enhancing convenience and amounting to increased economic productivity. Furthermore, the context of exponential increase in population and housing shortage can be a driving force behind the extravagant cost of land and construction for low-rises, let alone the recurring maintenance expenses, which heighten the financial burden for the majority. Therefore, I believe that growing municipalities upwards is a more viable approach since it can maximize land use efficiency, accommodating significantly more inhabitants compared to the same footprint of low-rise buildings.
In conclusion, while there are considerable advantages regarding the security and open space of horizontal cities, I would advocate for the vertically living arrangement seeing that it can help cope with overpopulation and resource exhaustion, which are some of humankind's most pressing challenges.
Some people think that it is best to live in a horizontal city while others think of a vertical city.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
In this day and age, there has been an ongoing debate over which is the superior urban planning, horizontal or vertical cities. From a personal perspective, I am inclined to side with living in a city which is developed upwards, although the other school of design may benefit the residents in specific aspects as well.
To commence, proponents of low-rise housing ground their argument in the merit of safety and freedom. Firstly, detached houses are generally safer than high-rise apartments due to the basic nature of each structure, which facilitates the escape from the buildings or victim-seeking process when a fire occurs. Meanwhile, in terms of sky-high constructions, fighting fire is such a daunting task considering not all buildings offer an effective evacuation plan or sufficient escape routes. Moreover, some mega-structures are vulnerable to natural incidents and may not be able to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, jeopardizing the lives of occupants and causing irreversible damage to the neighboring region. The earthquake striking Turkey in February is a salient example, which led to the mortalities of over 20,000 people and the collapse of thousands of high-rises0. Additionally, the spread-out nature of horizontal cities with low population density can provide residents with more access to green and open spaces for communality and a reduced frequency of congestion. Nevertheless, the sprawl of such cities can lead to the loss of natural and agricultural land as forests and pastures are eliminated to make room for housing erection.
In contrast, the cities that are vertically expanded can effectively address the natural resource depletion by combining recreational parks or shopping malls as built-in amenities, not to mention other amusement services in the proximity, hence enhancing convenience and amounting to increased economic productivity. Furthermore, the context of exponential increase in population and housing shortage can be a driving force behind the extravagant cost of land and construction for low-rises, let alone the recurring maintenance expenses, which heighten the financial burden for the majority. Therefore, I believe that growing municipalities upwards is a more viable approach since it can maximize land use efficiency, accommodating significantly more inhabitants compared to the same footprint of low-rise buildings.
In conclusion, while there are considerable advantages regarding the security and open space of horizontal cities, I would advocate for the vertically living arrangement seeing that it can help cope with overpopulation and resource exhaustion, which are some of humankind's most pressing challenges.
