IELTS Writing Task 2 – Band 8.0 Sample

As urban populations continue to grow, planners face a fundamental choice: should cities spread outwards into the surrounding countryside or build upwards on land that is already in use? Although both options have merits, I believe vertical growth is the more sustainable path.

Supporters of suburban expansion argue that it offers families a higher quality of life. New suburbs typically provide larger homes, private gardens and quieter streets at a fraction of the price of a city-centre flat. In addition, building on open land is often cheaper and faster than redeveloping crowded districts, which helps to ease housing shortages quickly. Many young families also value the sense of safety that low-density neighbourhoods provide for children playing outdoors.

However, others contend that building upwards makes far better use of scarce land. When people live closer together, public transport, schools and hospitals can serve them more efficiently, and residents spend less time stuck in traffic. Urban sprawl, by contrast, swallows up farmland and forests and makes car ownership almost essential. Singapore, for instance, houses millions of people in high-rise estates while setting aside a large share of its territory for parks and nature reserves.

In my opinion, the environmental and economic costs of sprawl are too high to ignore. Long commutes increase carbon emissions, and stretching roads and water pipes over ever larger areas places a heavy burden on public budgets. Well-designed tower blocks with green spaces and community facilities can provide comfortable homes without destroying the countryside.

In conclusion, while new suburbs may offer more space and short-term relief for housing shortages, I am convinced that cities should prioritise building upwards, as this protects natural land and creates more efficient communities.