#EssaybyMe
The shortage of housing in big cities can cause severe consequences. Only government action can solve this problem.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The argument over housing shortage in urban areas revolves around whether the standalone solution lies in governmental initiatives. In my opinion, though governments, due to their financial and authoritative power, are the primary actors in combating this predicament, the role of public in invoking for favorable reforms should not also be taken for granted.
Admittedly, governments exert the greatest power to instigate positive changes to the problem of lack of accommodation. That is, they have both authority and funds to enact changes on a large scale, affecting the lives of those suffering from land scarcity in urban areas. An urban development in the city of Singapore can be an infallible testimony to the role of government in coming up with an effective solution to accommodate the ever-increasing populace. The metropolis has become more vertical over time, boasting of numerous skyscrapers with a capacity to house millions, thereby at least mitigating housing shortage. Similarly, Singaporean government has also invested heavily in transport infrastructure lately, widening roads and offering superior public transport links, such as high-speed underground railway. As transport links increase, so will people’s desire to relocate to outlying towns, lessening the burden on housing in central areas.
However powerful governments may appear to tackle the issue, individuals can also wield a positive influence, albeit minimal. This is firstly because hardly do governments call for drastic reforms when there is little pressure by the public. In other words, despite authorities being capable of offering aid, individuals often act as a driving force behind their initiatives. Not only can citizens organize protests to express their dissatisfaction, but they can also bring the problem to wider publicity through social media platforms. The more people are engaged in such activism, the more willing their governments become to react so as to prevent public outcry and resultant damages. Furthermore, individuals should also become more engaged by showing willingness to move to suburban areas. Without this reciprocal action, cities would still suffer from the shortage of residences even in the presence of revamped transport facilities.
To conclude, I admit that governments are powerful enough to initiate the construction of more high-rise flats and ensure the provision of better transport facilities so that cities can accommodate more people and allow for the relocation to suburbs, easing housing shortages. Nevertheless, individuals should also actively engage to effectuate these changes, hence my stand being against the exclusive involvement of authorities in the matter.
⚡️ @aplusacademyielts ⚡️
The shortage of housing in big cities can cause severe consequences. Only government action can solve this problem.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The argument over housing shortage in urban areas revolves around whether the standalone solution lies in governmental initiatives. In my opinion, though governments, due to their financial and authoritative power, are the primary actors in combating this predicament, the role of public in invoking for favorable reforms should not also be taken for granted.
Admittedly, governments exert the greatest power to instigate positive changes to the problem of lack of accommodation. That is, they have both authority and funds to enact changes on a large scale, affecting the lives of those suffering from land scarcity in urban areas. An urban development in the city of Singapore can be an infallible testimony to the role of government in coming up with an effective solution to accommodate the ever-increasing populace. The metropolis has become more vertical over time, boasting of numerous skyscrapers with a capacity to house millions, thereby at least mitigating housing shortage. Similarly, Singaporean government has also invested heavily in transport infrastructure lately, widening roads and offering superior public transport links, such as high-speed underground railway. As transport links increase, so will people’s desire to relocate to outlying towns, lessening the burden on housing in central areas.
However powerful governments may appear to tackle the issue, individuals can also wield a positive influence, albeit minimal. This is firstly because hardly do governments call for drastic reforms when there is little pressure by the public. In other words, despite authorities being capable of offering aid, individuals often act as a driving force behind their initiatives. Not only can citizens organize protests to express their dissatisfaction, but they can also bring the problem to wider publicity through social media platforms. The more people are engaged in such activism, the more willing their governments become to react so as to prevent public outcry and resultant damages. Furthermore, individuals should also become more engaged by showing willingness to move to suburban areas. Without this reciprocal action, cities would still suffer from the shortage of residences even in the presence of revamped transport facilities.
To conclude, I admit that governments are powerful enough to initiate the construction of more high-rise flats and ensure the provision of better transport facilities so that cities can accommodate more people and allow for the relocation to suburbs, easing housing shortages. Nevertheless, individuals should also actively engage to effectuate these changes, hence my stand being against the exclusive involvement of authorities in the matter.
⚡️ @aplusacademyielts ⚡️