This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of living in vertical or horizontal cities from the real IELTS exam.
Be sure to sign up for my Patreon.com/HowtodoIELTS to support me and receive more weekly sample answers from the real exam.
Dave
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Horizontal and Vertical Cities
Some cities create housing for growing populations by building taller buildings while other cities have opted to build on wider areas of land.
Which solution is better?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many cities today are expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. In my opinion, this can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than encouraging urban sprawl.
Some would argue that tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers better quality of life. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above. Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of satisfaction and many ‘transplants’ move to such cities because of the better living standards.
However, those in favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for the area around a city. It is often hard to check the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way. Pristine natural lands can be designated as national parks. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times. This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large metropolises.
In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions but taller cities make more sense in the modern world. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.
Word count: 291
Analysis
1. Many cities today are expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. 2. In my opinion, this can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than encouraging urban sprawl.
- Paraphrase the overall topic for the whole essay.
- Write a clear opinion and choose 1 side overall.
1. Some would argue that tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers better quality of life. 2. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions. 3. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above. 4. Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of satisfaction and many ‘transplants’ move to such cities because of the better living standards.
- Write a topic sentence with a clear main idea at the end.
- Begin developing your idea with specific examples and ideas.
- Focus deeply on your examples.
- State the final result and conclude the paragraph.
1. However, those in favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for the area around a city. 2. It is often hard to check the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. 3. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way. 4. Pristine natural lands can be designated as national parks. 5. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times. 6. This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large metropolises.
- Write another topic sentence with a new main idea.
- Begin to explain or develop your main idea.
- Vary your long and short sentences so it is easy to read.
- Focus very specifically.
- Don’t switch to a new main idea, just add more support for the same idea.
- Conclude with the final results/development.
1. In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions but taller cities make more sense in the modern world. 2. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.
- Repeat your opinion and summarise your arguments.
- Add a final detail/thought.
Vocabulary
What do the words in bold below mean?
Many cities today are expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. In my opinion, this can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than encouraging urban sprawl.
Some would argue that tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers better quality of life. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above. Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of satisfaction and many ‘transplants‘ move to such cities because of the better living standards.
However, those in favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for the area around a city. It is often hard to check the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way. Pristine natural lands can be designated as national parks. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times. This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large metropolises.
In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions but taller cities make more sense in the modern world. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.
Answers
expanding upwards growing taller
accommodate surging urban populations increasing number of people living in cities
preserve nearby land keep land around cities safe
other uses can be utilised for other purposes
encouraging urban sprawl advocating for spread-out, large cities
argue believe
present challenges make it difficult
spread-out city city taking up lots of area
better quality of life higher standard of living
condensed urban areas smaller cities with lots of people
apartment blocks residential buildings
famously difficult notoriously hard
overcrowding too many people
sanitation cleanliness
safety how dangerous/safe a place is, crime
traffic conditions how busy the streets are
decentralised cities spread-out cities
unique individual neighborhoods disctinctive districts in a city
residential construction houses, condos, apartments
reduction less of
report say they have
satisfaction feeling happy with
transplants people who move to a new city to live
better living standards better quality of life
logically point out rationally argue
resultant benefits advantages that come as a result
check control
skyscrapers very tall buildings
preserved kept safe
pristine natural lands beautiful scenery
designated set aside for
national parks parks owned by the government
proximately located farms nearby farms
fast delivery times can get their goods more quickly
surplus land extra land/space
quiet suburban towns small, calm suburbs
raising a family having a family life
earning a good wage get good money
easy access no problem getting to
cultural benefits museums, music, libraries, etc.
metropolises big cities
facilitate make easier
living conditions how people live in a city
make more sense in the modern world more logical for the way things are now
nonetheless regardless
strike a balance be moderate
mitigate lessen, control
growing urban populations more and more people living in cities
quality infrastructure good buildings, streets, plumbing, etc.
Pronunciation
Listen and repeat:
ɪksˈpændɪŋ ˈʌpwədz
əˈkɒmədeɪt ˈsɜːʤɪŋ ˈɜːbən ˌpɒpjʊˈleɪʃənz
prɪˈzɜːv ˈnɪəbaɪ lænd
ˈʌðə ˈjuːzɪz
ɪnˈkʌrɪʤɪŋ ˈɜːbən sprɔːl
ˈɑːgjuː
ˈprɛznt ˈʧælɪnʤɪz
sprɛd-aʊt ˈsɪti
ˈbɛtə ˈkwɒlɪti ɒv laɪf
kənˈdɛnst ˈɜːbən ˈeərɪəz
əˈpɑːtmənt blɒks
ˈfeɪməsli ˈdɪfɪkəlt
ˌəʊvəˈkraʊdɪŋ
ˌsænɪˈteɪʃən
ˈseɪfti
ˈtræfɪk kənˈdɪʃənz
diːˈsɛntrəlaɪzd ˈsɪtiz
juːˈniːk ˌɪndɪˈvɪdjʊəl ˈneɪbəhʊdz
ˌrɛzɪˈdɛnʃəl kənˈstrʌkʃən
rɪˈdʌkʃən
rɪˈpɔːt
ˌsætɪsˈfækʃən
trænsˈplɑːnts
ˈbɛtə ˈlɪvɪŋ ˈstændədz
ˈlɒʤɪkəli pɔɪnt aʊt
rɪˈzʌltənt ˈbɛnɪfɪts
ʧɛk
ˈskaɪˌskreɪpəz
prɪˈzɜːvd
ˈprɪstaɪn ˈnæʧrəl lændz
ˈdɛzɪgneɪtɪd
ˈnæʃənl pɑːks
ˈprɒksɪmɪtli ləʊˈkeɪtɪd fɑːmz
fɑːst dɪˈlɪvəri taɪmz
ˈsɜːpləs lænd
ˈkwaɪət səˈbɜːbən taʊnz
ˈreɪzɪŋ ə ˈfæmɪli
ˈɜːnɪŋ ə gʊd weɪʤ
ˈiːzi ˈæksɛs
ˈkʌlʧərəl ˈbɛnɪfɪts
mɪˈtrɒpəlɪsɪz
fəˈsɪlɪteɪt
ˈlɪvɪŋ kənˈdɪʃənz
meɪk mɔː sɛns ɪn ðə ˈmɒdən wɜːld
ˌnʌnðəˈlɛs
straɪk ə ˈbæləns
ˈmɪtɪgeɪt
ˈgrəʊɪŋ ˈɜːbən ˌpɒpjʊˈleɪʃənz
ˈkwɒlɪti ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌkʧə
Vocabulary Practice
Remember and fill in the blanks:
Many cities today are e______________________s to a__________________________________________s. In my opinion, this can help p________________________________d for o____________________s and is a better solution than e_________________________________l.
Some would a__________e that tall cities p_________________________s for inhabitants and a s__________________y offers b__________________________e. C_____________________________s with lots of tall a_______________________s, like in New York City or Shanghai, are f____________________t to live in due to the effects of o___________________g on s________________n, s___________y, and t_____________________________s. In contrast, d_______________________s like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of u______________________________________s, more space for r_______________________________n and a r________________n of the urban issues listed above. Individuals living in these cities often r____________t greater feelings of s____________________n and many ‘t_________________s‘ move to such cities because of the b________________________s.
However, those in favour of taller buildings can l________________________t the r______________________s for the area around a city. It is often hard to c_________k the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more s_____________________s, the surrounding area can be p__________________d or used in another way. P__________________________s can be d_______________d as n______________________s. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be p__________________________________s with f________________________s. This s____________________d could also be turned into q__________________________s to give residents the choice of r_____________________y outside the city and still e_________________________e and having e___________________s to the c______________________________s of large m________________s.
In conclusion, horizontal cities f__________________e some positive l_____________________________s but taller cities m________________________________________d. It is, n__________________s, important to s______________________e and m_______________e the issues caused by g________________________________s with q___________________________e.
Listen and check:
Listening Practice
Listen to some architects here:
Reading Practice
Learn about the neighborhoods of Los Angeles below:
https://la.curbed.com/2018/6/15/17454456/los-angeles-neighborhoods-where-to-live-advice
Speaking Practice
Answer the following questions about urban planning from the real IELTS exam below:
Urban Planning
How important is urban planning for a city?
What are the possible drawbacks of not having a good plan?
How do cities in your country differ?
What effect do businesses have on urban planning?
How can people make their voices heard when it comes to urban planning?
Real IELTS Speaking Exam
Writing Practice
Write about the following related topic then check with my sample answer below:
There are severe social consequences to housing shortages in cities and only the government can solve these problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Hi Dave,
Would you be kind enough to rate this essay?
All major cities around the world are facing issues accommodating its ever growing population. Providing housing for its inhabitants, hence require meticulous planning from government officials. While some cities build tall buildings others build houses on wider areas of land. This essay will discuss why it is better to opt to build apartments rather than landed houses.
Some flats can accommodate as much as hundred families and they use only a significantly less area of land. This can free up land to be utilized for other activities like building industries, farming and leisure activities. For instance, Singapore’s planned public and private apartments have freed up enough land for developing its famous greenhouse vegetable farming and it is now exporting Baby Kaylan and Kankong to neighboring countries. Tall buildings will also enable the city to allocate more area to preserve its flora and fauna.
Studies have shown that people living nearer to city centers tend to use public transport than individual vehicles. This will help to reduce city’s pollution index to a very large extend. Less cars on the road will also reduce traffic conjunction and people can reach when they intend to go in a lesser time. India’s first planned city built in Amaravat is a prime example of how properly planned tall flats can lead to lesser pollution and traffic jams in cities.
Hence, it is of no doubt that tall apartments are much better than building landed houses for accommodation in places that is likely to inhabit large population.
Hi Joseph!
You can try out my marking service for full feedback: course.howtodoielts.com/band-scores-corrections
Careful with your definite and indefinite articles, really love your examples, careful with comparatives as well.
Good start!
Hi Dave!
About the last sentence of body 2, if people live in the sub-urban areas, I think it is the same as expanding horizontally.
Can you help to explain?
Great point VA!
In fact, there is a slight distinction – but it is a bit of a grey area.
I grew up in a suburb of Boston but you wouldn’t consider the suburb to be part of the city – so it wouldn’t count as being part of a horizontal city.
In other cities and countries, someone might include the suburb as part of the city.
That makes it a grey area but it is fine in a short essay to group it the way you like since both would be acceptable.
As cities continue to grow, urbanists are constructing taller building structures to accommodate the rising population. However, smaller houses are still considered by some people as a dwelling by the simple virtue of being more convenient and airy. In my opinion, a high-rise house is a better choice for people nowadays. The following paragraphs will explain the reason behind my choice with suitable examples.
The key driver for high-rise buildings is, of course, the cost-effectiveness. These tall structures save a lot of space and accommodate more occupants as compared to lower density buildings. This approach is more economical as buying a smaller plot of land and building several floors over it makes it more affordable than the houses in a widespread terrain. A recent study by an eminent urbanist Mr. James Brown shows that the average cost for an apartment in these skyscrapers is approximately $700 in most metropolitan cities. Hence, it is a cheaper alternative than low rise houses.
The high-rise buildings provide a huge number of options and amenities for the urban dwellers. These have elevators, gymnasiums, parks, pools, spas and, security services that make then an attractive alternative. These ‘mini-cities’ are sometimes made so creatively that it becomes a city landmark and are sometimes considered as iconic constructions because of their huge stature and creativity. Besides this, they allow the city to grow without increasing its boundaries infringing the green space for agriculture.
To conclude, it is profitable for residents to live in a structured multi-story apartment than in a sprawling single-story house. The trend is already moving in the favor of high-rises and is expected to grow likewise in the future as well.
This looks really good!
I’m just not sure about this 2 sentences.
In my opinion, a high-rise house is a better choice for people nowadays. The following paragraphs will explain the reason behind my choice with suitable examples.
In this first sentence you talk about people’s choice and the second one is about your’s.
That is fine Joseph because it is clear that ‘my choice’ references back to ‘In my opinion… a better choice’ – the opinion can be referenced in that way.
Well written Harpreet!
Really nice vocabulary and you develop your paragraphs very specifically.
Careful with articles, ellipsis, referencing plural pronouns, and subordinate clauses.
Keep it up!
Hi Dave!
The question asks which solution is better, so I guess it’s the same as asking what is your opinion.
I doesn’t ask to discuss both views and give your opinion.
Also, you stated in the introduction that verticall cities are better. Shouldn’t we support our opinion in both paragraphs because it’s not a discussion essay but an argument essay?
Why discuss the option that you don’t support if the essay that doesn’t ask you to do it?
I’m a bit confused because if I follow your approach than I can discuss both views regardless of the question.
I look forward to hearing your comments.
I strongly, strongly advice (as do other experts like Pauline Cullen) that you always write about both sides.
This way you will not repeat your arguments and get low marks for TA and CC.
I rarely ever write a one-sided answer for this reason.
Thank you for your reply.
No problem!
Hello Dave
I have one question about the essay.
In introduction, you mentioned that taller building cities are better solution, but the first sentence is about horizontal building and you mentioned your agreement in second structure.
In addition, the question is “Which solution is better?”
In conclusion, you said balance and mitigation about both.
So I am a bit confusing about the structures
Thanks
For these questions you need to give an overall opinion. In the conclusion I say that taller cities make more sense so that is my opinion.
I still write about both sides – I recommend that you always do that – just make sure you have an overall opinion as well!
The approach to expand cities as a solution for overpopulation is an ongoing debate. Some people think that horizontal expansion is more advantageous, while others believe that it has a lot of detrimental effects on people and the environment. In my opinion, vertical development to combat housing problems in cities is more beneficial in many ways.
There are some who advocate for urban sprawl on the basis that it is more economical. It is affordable for people to buy large houses on larger lots if they choose to live outside the city center. However, this option could also damage the environment and degrade human health. Sprawling neighborhoods transform open areas into highways and houses. This could result in the loss of spaces for wildlife and farmland. Moreover, because of the distance from the city, the number of cars which emit carbon to the atmosphere will increase. For this reason, it exacerbates our chances to acquire air pollutants and could lead to respiratory problems.
Living in high-rise buildings is more favorable environmentally and socially. Skyscrapers not just save spaces but also conserve the green environment. Aside from that, this is the best place if an individual is looking for social motivation as this is accessible to shopping malls, recreational centers, and advanced healthcare facilities. These are the reasons why skyscrapers are an integral part of every urban environment.
In conclusion, there is no denying that it is less expensive to create housing in outlying areas from cities. However, living in taller buildings in cities not just environmentally friendly than a sizeable urban sprawl but also creates more opportunities for a better lifestyle.
Good work!
The idea of expanding… are more… there are a lot of potential drawbacks for… good topic sentence! … good 2nd paragraph with good support… would be better with a clear example in the 3rd paragraph
Well done with the clear opinion as well!
Due to the global exponential in population, many governments are opting to construct high rise apartments, however, others are building houses in the big wide areas. This essay will provide the key answers to this problem.
Primarily, it has been seen that as there is a rapid increase in the population, people cannot find a suitable place to live. So, the builders are constructing skyscrapers, to accommodate more people in one building. To illustrate, in Canada, cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are highly populated, and there is no land to stretch further, therefore, the administration has decided to build multiple housing units in one building. Although these houses are small, people choose to live there as they cannot find a larger place to live in. Moreover, these houses are not safe, especially during the natural calamities such as earthquake, also, there is less privacy as the houses are close and intact. However, they have a key point that in these contemporary buildings, many indoor facilities are being provided to the people.
Nonetheless, there are certain cities which tend to construct big houses in the large open areas, as the population of those cities is less, the land is widely available. These houses are safer as only one family resides in each house. For instance, cities like Auckland, and Adelaide, have a smaller number of people, therefore they have more open land available to build houses. It has been observed that people not only find them secured but also more peaceful as it is only a one-story building.
In conclusion, although many people are opting to buy high condominiums, it depends upon the people’s affordability. They can find wide space, solitude, and safety from natural catastrophes, on the other hand in apartments they could get better amenities such as pool and gym.
Very strong points and supporting ideas! I love reading your essays, very logically put together. Impressive!