People believe 'vertical cities' are the best to live and work in while others believe ' horizontal' cities are better. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with a dilemma whether it is beneficial to live and work in urban areas with vertical orientation, or one with horizontal silhouette. This essay will discuss both sides and share a plausible opinion.
To start with, a lobby propounds that the metropolitan areas dominated by skyscrapers afford unprecedented convenience to their dwellers. One can find markets, schools and offices at a stone’s throw distance, eliminating the cumbersome task of everyday commuting. For example, in Japan, many choose to live in surroundings that have high rise edifices since every imaginable facility is available in close proximity, alleviating distance and unnecessary travelling. Moreover, the houses are built on the small geographical footprint for accommodating a large populace, mitigating real estate prices and rents, besides creating room for greener buffers and surroundings as lesser space is brought under the occupation of concrete.
Having said that, an army of people asserts that urban locales having a flatter skyline lets dwellers enjoy nature and its benefits to the fullest. This is to say, one can get a clear view of skies, often a luxury in the street canyons created by tall buildings around, enjoy free flowing breeze, and soak in sunlight loaded with Vitamin D: an essential ingredient for strong bones, and lead a healthier life. Additionally, such settings make evacuation uncomplicated during times of crises: flood, earthquake and so forth, ensuring that loss of life and material is minimized.
To conclude, considering the aforementioned views, I believe life in both kinds of urban settings offers distinct benefits, where one has shorter distances and effortless accessibility to services, the other promises relaxing views and surroundings, and can be chosen as per convenience and preferences.