Some people say that a vertical city is the best where people can live, while others say that horizontal cities are better. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Sky scrappers have become a characteristic feature of almost all developed cities today. Some people opine that cities should have more tall buildings, while others think there should not be many high rises. The given paragraphs will discuss both sides to conclude.

On the one hand, due to mass movements in cities, the space crunch has arisen. There is consistently a lack of room to build residences and offices. Skyscrapers have helped to solve the problems arising as a result of urbanization. Another benefit of high rises is that it is economical, for more houses or offices can be constructed on a piece of land. Horizontal cities are not an option in cities as the cost of land is very high, and cities accommodate the massive population.

On the other hand, high rises have some issues which could be bothering. First, it has been observed that more crimes happen in high rises as security is an issue. In addition, infrastructure and maintenance issues can also be concerning. It requires more power to send water to higher floors. Also, a report says that tenants refuse to pay the high cost of maintenance surfacing due to elevators, etc.
Horizontal cities look less cluttered, adding to their aesthetics of it. Also, owners of offices and houses have more autonomy, so any changes can be done to their property, an option not available in high rises.

I believe high rises are the need of the hour, and there is no way more people can be accommodated in cities, and with a little more advent in construction technology, the financial overhead of these buildings can be reduced in the future. However, if there is more uniformity in the development of cities and rural areas, the migration from rural areas may be checked and the need for high rises may reduce.