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?

Many people today feel that limited housing in urban areas can only be seriously addressed by governmental action. In my opinion, private investiture in

area will always be low so governments bear the burden of responsibility.

Only limited support for housing problems will come from the private sector. Large real estate and construction firms are mainly motivated to generate the greatest profits and will

largely cater projects towards a wealthy clientele.

means building large apartments and homes that likely replace smaller homes, exacerbating any existing housing crisis. In New York City,

, ambitious developers knocked down

housing projects and built luxury apartments and

homes. These efforts push poor residents out of the city and

away from their work and engender a variety of social problems.

The only realistic solution for housing shortages in major urban areas in governmental intervention. Governments can either build themselves or accept bids from construction companies. There are inspirational examples of public works projects in cities all around the world. The typical process is that the

will delineate an undeveloped or poorly planned area for new homes and accept bids from private companies. Since these areas are unavailable for unregulated commercial exploitation, the

holds power over the private companies. Once these projects are completed, they can house thousands of residents

, which allows

find quality jobs in the city and eventually move out of these housing developments.

In conclusion, the

is the major catalyst in all housing solutions in cities. Governments ought to prioritise these efforts before cities become too gentrified and

hinders upwards social mobility