In modern society, people concern more about living environment. It is raised an issue that which place is suitable for living, high-rises centre or suburb sprawl. Two very different articles provide contrasting perspectives on this issue. The article by Michal Mitrany, an advisor on architecture and town planning, on ‘High density neighbourhoods: Who enjoys them’, explores the positive evaluations and benefits in high density.
Another article by T. A. Frank, a writer and an editor at the Washington Monthly, entitled ‘Density versus sprawl’, investigates the reasons why new housing doesn’t work and show what people want. The study by Mitrany offers a sufficient evaluation to contribute to the high-rises neighbourhoods. The main point of Mitrany’s article is that there are some positive effects of high density in neighbourhoods. He argues that the awareness of the potential advantages of high density can be attributed to physical planning and positively evaluated by local residents.
Mitrany cites that the increased chances for social gathering are the most significant advantage. The interviews are conducted by the author to find out that the gender and age group are the most beneficial from the high density. It is also stated a counter argument that high density does not help the development of social relationships on the neighbourhood level. He then concludes that women, young families with children and senior citizens have more positive evaluation and benefits on the high density environment.
Frank’s article seeks to show the need for people who want to live between town centre and sprawling suburb. He also states that, in contrast, government prefers the high density because of the expensive cost of sprawling. The reason is identified by Frank that government passes the anti-sprawl law, which could help city centre’s economic growth. Other problems are discovered by the author such as parking policies, cost of living and limited supply of housing. He studies previous research to compare the conflicts.
In the end, Frank suggests that supplies from a neighbourhood include safety and quality schools could contribute to families moving to high-rises that lack parking. Both articles take the high density in neighbourhoods into account. Mitrany offers a point of view that high density has positive evaluation and advantages in neighbourhoods. It is effective to collect the results by conducting interviews in Haifa, Israel. In attempting to support his arguments, he compiles a lot of statistics and graphs from the interviews.
By analysing those figures, the author identifies population groups that benefit from the high density. It would be more persuasive if Mitrany had quoted some statistics from other cities in other countries to show the same results. In contrast, Frank specifically focuses on the need for people who want to live in a better environment and seeks a middle level space. In his work the author tries to find out what Americans want and the problems. He seems to state the negative neighbourhoods in high density but does not offer sufficient details.
Although Frank make a recommendation, some detailed statistics giving to support his position would have been helpful. In conclusion, these articles make a brief understanding of current issues surrounding the neighbourhoods in high-rises and in sprawling. The findings of Frank demonstrate the contradictions between the government and residents and he also make a suggestion to deal with the problems. However, Mitrany presents a more supportive and persuasive perspective towards the evaluation on high neighbourhood density to satisfy more people’s needs.