Some cities create housing for their growing population by providing taller buildings. Other cities create housing by building on wider areas of land. Which solution is better?
Cities have different views with regard to solutions to tackle their growing population. While some construct high-rise apartments to improve housing capability, others would like to expand thier cities. Both of these solutions have its own beneficial impacts; however, I align with the latter opinion.
On the one hand, there are several merits of building multi-storey apartments to provide houses in cities. To commence with, one of the major benefits is the increasing in housing capacity. Taller residental building with multiple floors and units, can acommodate a larger number of residents within a smaller footprin land. Another advantage of multi-storey building is that it can maximize the efficient use of limited urban land. For instance, while population density is increasing with the scarce of available land, high-rise apartments can provide the necessary housing capacity without sprawling into green spaces or encroaching on natural landscapes.
On the other hand, building on wider areas of land can also bring numerous advantagous effects on either cities or individuals. First of all, with the expanse of land, the noise level and traffic congestion of cities can be minimized. In fact, many research studies have shown that, due to the huge influx of people moving to the cities every years, cities witness traffic jams almost every days. So expanding land can expand more roads that can reduce traffic congestion effectively, especially in rushing hours. Furthermore, wider land areas can offer people more spacious living environments. Residents can enjoy larger home, ample green spaces and closer connection to nature. This contributes to higher quality of life and improved well-being.
In conclusion, to solve the population explosion in cities, both of the solutions that contructing multi-storey apartments or building on wider areas bring several benefits. However, I believe that expanding cities’ land is a better one as it offers a better living space for people and also reduce the traffic problems.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-17 | Phuong1810 | 73 | view |
| 2023-09-17 | Phuong1810 | 73 | view |
| 2023-09-17 | Phuong1810 | 67 | view |
| 2023-09-17 | Phuong1810 | 67 | view |
| 2023-09-17 | Phuong1810 | 67 | view |
- The chart shows the results of surveys in one African country asking teenagers the main reasons for using their phones between 2016 and 2019 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The use of social media is replacing face to face interaction among many people in society Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 89
- Parents should encourage their children to spend less time on studying and more time on physical activities To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- The diagrams below show the development of the horse 78
- Environmental damage is a problem in most countries What are the major causes of environmental damage Who are responsible for preventing environmental damage 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, first of all, with regard to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1728.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 314.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50318471338 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77519951027 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566878980892 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8843552034 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.647058824 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4705882353 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58823529412 7.06120827912 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324098312929 0.244688304435 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0975868170075 0.084324248473 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625177472965 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192284881533 0.151304729494 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0305328232596 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.4159519038 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.