The debate surrounding whether the construction of parks or developments in housing should be prioritised in cities has garnered significant attention. In this essay, I will explore both sides of the argument and articulate my personal stance.
Advocates in favour of cities prioristing parks argue that it would serve to reduce the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the presence of a myriad of plants. In turn, it can reduce the pollution in the air produced from vehicles and factories; hence, ameliorating the quality of fresh air. Furthermore, it is worth noting that enhancing parks can provide more play-areas for children to flourish and bloom as an individual, as well as providing parents with more leisure time to relax from the stress of their children.
Conversely, proponents of the opposing viewpoint raise concerns that housing should be the main priority of cities due to the rapidly increasing human population. For instance, the birth rate and life expectancy has immensely developed in the past years due to the medical advancements and enhanced level of treatments. Moreover, focusing on housing options can aid in reducing the percentage of homeless individuals as it will display a plethora of affordable options.
In conclusion, both sides present valid arguments. While the proponents emphasise the potential advantages of aiming on developing parks rather than buildings to lessen the contamination of air and offer youngsters more locations to entertain themselves , opponents highlight the necessity of improving houses as they provide more housing opportunities to the less fortunate and acts a solution to the rising population number.