Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings.

Others create
housing by building houses on a wider area of land.
WHICH SOLUTION IS BETTER?

While many cities develop their residential area vertically, others prefer horizontally. In my opinion,
developing high-rise houses is better in the long term, since it solves population problems as aids the
city’s goods distribution.

To begin with, living in vertical-constructed buildings indeed has more challenges than in spread-out
buildings for the inhabitants. Because the former category is usually compacted with more people;
thus, issues such as sanitation, safety, and traffic congestion may emerge, causing inconvenient living
experience. In contrast, since the population in the latter category is sparser, it has fewer mentioned
issues above. Take an example of Jakarta, where many skyscraper apartments are built, some of its
local citizen complain about how awful the traffic in there, while in the Cimory, a city located on
countryside, the locals seem to be happy with their city condition.

However, in the future, a high-rise housing is predicted to be a solution for the population progression
of mankind. Because as the number of people multiplies, but the available residential area does not;
leading to a scarcer residential area then. By utilising the vertical space, it can contain more people
than the conventional residential area does in the same size of an area. Moreover, the skyscraper-
building’s surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way such as for agricultural purpose,
which potentially can improve the city economically. Should a small farm is provided in a city,
commodities such as vegetables and diaries can be delivered efficiently, cutting the high cost which is
caused by remote shipments.

In summary, even though the spread-out residential area is better for living purpose, the high-rise
housing development in the city is better for the long term because it solves a fundamental human’s
problem and provides an economic value.