It is important to have huge public spaces like parks and squares in towns and cities. Do you agree or disagree with the given statement?

With the expansion of urban population and the enhancement of the cities, people are found living in concrete jungles surrounded by tall buildings. Thus, some people argue that it is important to have large outdoor spaces such as squares and parks, others disagree. 

There are several perks of having open outdoor spaces in urban locales. To begin with, such settings can help improve the air quality of the surroundings, which these days is degraded due to pollution from traffic and industry. These buffers act as the lungs of the cities - by virtue of recycling the air, and rendering urbanites with clean air. Apart from this, these spaces can be used to organize celebrations, fests and spiritual meetings. It can promote a beautiful green area, where people can come to relax after a hectic day, breathe fresh air, exercise and maintain fitness. This can also promote socialization as citizens can use these locations to meet and interact. For instance, it has been seen that the elderly tend to use parks and gardens to meet their peers.   

On the other hand, this idea is rejected by many; as per them, urban locales are facing a severe dearth of land and squandering it by converting them into parks and square would make it impossible to provide space for industrial areas, malls, commercial centers and residential buildings. Consequently, the prices of real estate would spiral out of control and make city life expensive for a majority of the populace.  

In conclusion, big open spaces are a must for the future generation. Although towns and cities face infrastructure problems due to the growing population, the government should take the initiative in order to leave open spaces for the welfare of the citizens.  

Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation’s history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

 Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation’s history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

It is important to conserve ancient structures 

• They mirror achievements of ancestors in the field of architecture and building technologies - some knowledge can be used in contemporary times 

• They represent rich heritage and are a good way to inform the current generation about their past 

• They also are considered as the face of a city, something that is used as a medium to lure tourists. 

NO? History should not present hurdles in the way of progress 

• Old structures needs colossal investments for maintenance 

• It is hard to recondition these since material used in construction is hard to locate 

• These structures are space intensive, but modern concepts rely on compact sizes- help accommodate more populace and businesses

• Modern concepts rely more on eco-friendly building techniques, structure arrangement, and material, and can provide efficient energy use mechanism 

• These structures are not safe for occupancy and despite heavy maintenance, they are vulnerable to collapse and extending relief in structures can surely be an onerous task.

•  

In concurrent times, when there is a rising need to accommodate  dramatically expanding populations and businesses by providing them with space and money efficient solutions, a common suggestion has surfaced that old infrastructure should be razed and replaced with modern construction. However, there is strong dissent on this issue.

Those in favor of demolishing old structures profess that these require colossal investments of invaluable financial resources for refurbishment, and still do not provide an enduring way out for long term, by virtue of being space and energy intensive. However, contemporary construction concepts offer promises for more practical answers to the incrementing needs as developing new infrastructure will use a fraction of money allocated for maintenance of aging buildings, and will be economical in all aspects: space and energy.  

Notwithstanding the former opinion, it is extremely essential to protect such heritage as it mirrors the glorious past of a society, in the form of achievements in architecture and building technology that appropriately address local needs as per the climate, geography and socio-economic arrangements. These can also provide important cues to contemporary architects and engineers. For example, conserving pagodas in Japan has helped civil engineers learn about designing earthquake resistant buildings and skyscrapers.

Moreover, these edifices carry a great nostalgic value rather than just being piles of concrete and bricks, and act as the face of a city. They are the only reasons for alien tourists to undertake journeys to such locations. Undeniably cities like Jaipur, despite not being industrial towns, are thriving simply because of millions visiting to see ancient buildings.

Overall, it is necessary to find a panacea that creates balance between responding to the current demands and conserving the legacy of the past. Therefore, governments should act prudently and consider changes wherever possible.

In many cities today, most people live in large apartment blocks. Does this kind of accommodation have more advantages or disadvantages?

 

In many cities today, most people live in large apartment blocks. Does this kind of accommodation have more advantages or disadvantages?

 

Advantages of living in large apartment blocks 

• A closely knit community tha afford opportunities for people to celebrate festivals and events together 
• Convenient life in these gated areas: all facilities are available are within close vicinity 
• No hassles for parking 
• Round the clock power back up and water 
• Unmatched security for dwellers 
• Cost-effective living since cost of maintenance is shared by all
• Peaceful atmosphere 

Disadvantages of living in large apartment blocks 

• Lack of privacy 
• No alterations possible - exterior or interior - without permission 
• No access to rooftop terrace 

In contemporary times, living in large gated societies has become a fad among many. This kind of dwelling is although abound with several comforts, there are certain shortcomings  unworthy of being ignored.

The most prominent benefit afforded by these dwelling units that are generally in gated societies is unprecedented stress free lifestyle: those residing in these locales are exposed to availability of every imaginable facility closeby, mostly within the walls of gated regions such as shopping arcades, community centers, clubs and gyms, to name a few, making these easily accessible. One cannot also deny that the environment built is also quite comfortable and healthy, a great care is taken to create  green surroundings by planting numerous trees and building parks for residents, so that they can spend some time in the midst of greenery: playing; taking  a stroll; or socializing with neighbors, offering unmatched pleasures of life.  

Moreover, security is another factor that makes these locations most sought after since the entry gates of such blocks are manned by security personnel who keep a close vigil on the area, monitoring the visitors and also the vendors who frequent societies for supplying material, offering a reliable protection to all; especially women, children and the elderly.

However, a major pitfall that sometimes  mars those residing in such neighborhoods is absence of privacy. It is always essential to keep in mind the comfort and likes and dislikes of neighbors, and follow the common norms such as not organizing noisy parties in their homes; and refrain from altering layouts of their houses without obtaining due permission from society management.

Overall, despite choosing to live in apartments in housing societies having certain pitfalls, the advantages these offer are unparalleled, and in fact, outshine the former.

 

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better? Dictated Essay

 Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better? 

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles

Of late, several cities across the world have been opting for bicycles and discouraging the use of personal four wheelers. This can be attributed to numerous causes, the planners cite humongous benefits of such a swing. However, some still feel the cars are irreplaceable.

The most prominent motivation behind urban authorities bringing in bicycles and shelving cars is to ease up road congestion. Over the past few years, the number of private four wheelers had witnessed a spike, resulting in traffic snarls, thereby dramatically reducing the travelling speeds: in some cities the traffic struggles at speeds as slow as 10km per hour. Reintroducing cycles has helped remove a large number of four wheelers, providing  much relief to the road users by cutting down the travelling times.

Another objective that the local governments have been able to attain, afford safer roads to the city dwellers. Since cars have nearly disappeared from such urban landscapes, the incidence of reckless driving has drastically diminished. Consequently, the number of road mishaps involving erring car drivers have dwindled. The studies of surroundings suggest that the road users feel more secure while traversing across the city.

The use of cars finds favors with those wedded to the idea of travelling along with their family wherever they go. For such people, pedaling individually is quite unappealing: they do not get opportunity to share the lighter movements, whereas while using a car they can derive the pleasure by being together, sharing their views and concerns, and experiencing excitement  of moving together.

Overall, I strongly feel that even though choosing bicycles instead of cars for the urban surroundings is surely a positive move, completely abandoning the use of the latter is nearly impossible, especially in the contemporary times when people face scarcity of time.  

Nowadays the population of the world is increasing rapidly. New homes and accommodation should be built for this additional population. Some believe that more houses should be constructed in existing towns and cities. Others believe that creating entirely new towns in the countryside to accommodate these houses is the best way. What is your opinion?

Nowadays the population of the world is increasing rapidly. New homes and accommodation should be built for this additional population. Some believe that more houses should be constructed in existing towns and cities. Others believe that creating entirely new towns in the countryside to accommodate these houses is the best way. What is your opinion?

Rising urban population has led to the problem of creating adequate space for accommodating city dwellers. There is a whole array of suggestions raining in from every direction where some people suggest that it would be better to develop new cities in the countryside; others feel that expanding existing urban locations in a better option.

Developing and expanding new locations would prove be a practical option since large urban locations have necessary expertise and resources present to cater to the fuel expansion. An already existing network of utilities and services would not need a huge investment, and raising the things from scratch; this could prove to be highly efficient, in terms of time and money. The reason for this simple since the new development plans would get implemented quickly since these would not run into procedural hurdles, and would not require too many clearances and sanctions.

Furthermore, the charisma of existing urban centers refuses to fade away due to the close proximity of every imaginable facility, and venues of employment, education and entertainment. Therefore expanding an existing set-up seems to be a better option, for it would not only quickly amortize the investments of authorities but also contain the inhabitants of urban center within a limited premise and area.

However, shifting the pressure of population to new locations in the countryside also seems to be a viable option, as developing new locations would not only offer a wonderful opportunity of correcting the mistakes committed in the past, in terms of urban planning, but also give a chance to establish a bustling urban location with an up to date plan, that satisfies every modern requirement.

Henceforth, I feel that developing brand new locations away from the crumbling urban centers is a better option.  

Some people believe that modern designs for schools and offices with more open spaces are necessary. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such spaces? Give your opinion.

Some people believe that modern designs for schools and offices with more open spaces are necessary. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such spaces? Give your opinion.

 

Ielts Essay - Open Spaces 

Modern architectural concepts promote principles of creating free buffer zones in the schools and work places. This matter has become trivial enough since many experts have taken to task of exploring benefits and shortcomings of such an arrangement.

Open buffers, act as a medium that provide opportunity to let off the steam; and, thus a much required mental relief to the employees and students, working and studying in cluttered surroundings. Working in crowded rooms are often noisy that affect the acoustics of premises. These often affect concentration; thus impeding creativity. An open buffer in the surroundings can do wonders since these help people relax and think clearly since areas lined up with either plants or other decoration, encourage free movement; thereby providing much needed solitude.  

Moreover, it has been observed, open spaces can make a person feel at home even in a crowded room with linear arrangements. Sitting in a surrounding with little room for physical movement can quickly tire a person physically, and devoid him or her of opportunities to stretch and get some relaxation that causes physical discomfort; hamper efficiency; and as a consequence productivity. Having free buffer areas can help generate physical satisfaction, sometimes by giving room for switchover of activity, and at others simply by sight.

However, the concept of adding free open space to offices and schools has come under fire from the vehement critics. They consider such a practice to be a complete misuse of available space in the times when accommodating population and businesses has become a severe problem, due to scarcity of land. This may lead to environmental disaster in form of sped-up deforestation.

Hence, I personally feel that open spaces would surely benefit occupants of classrooms and offices.

Some people argue that cars should be banned in city centres while others are against this idea. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion. - Ielts Essay

Some people argue that cars should be banned in city centres while others are against this idea. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Ielts Essay - Ban Traffic at City Center 

With the traffic jams becoming a major issue in the bigger cities world over many urban area planners have been extending suggestions of banning the use of cars in the central parts of cities to ease up the pressure of traffic on roads, while others feel that adopting such measures would be unjustified and not help much.

People who justify imposition of measures to discourage use of personal transport in central zones of cities feel that city centers do not have wide roads and use of individual transportation adds to problems because people traversing in their own automobiles need individual space while driving which increases density of traffic per person on already clogged central city roads.

Besides increasing per person traffic density on roads, people travelling in their four wheelers also need individual parking space which further adds up to problems of already clogged narrow roads of central areas. This leaves little room for pedestrians because most of the space is used by make shift parking lots. This also spoils the looks of beautiful inner areas.

On the contrary, the lobby which feels that it would be too stringent an action to forbid use of personal four wheelers in city centers, base their argument on a strong logic. They think that people use personal transportation to save on time and barring them from entering central zones will force them to avoid these areas, which would in turn hamper the local business and popularity of these zones.

In conclusion, I personally feel that resolving the problem of traffic is indeed an issue in central areas of cities and we need to take stringent measures to ease up pressure on roads but barring entry of cars would not go long way in easing up traffic jams.