There has been ongoing debate whether city administration should prioritise green spaces rather than residential developments. I partially disagree with given claim, and I believe authorities should focus on people’s primary needs.
To begin with, there has been a significant rise in housing demand. A noticeable part of society with low socioeconomic status struggles to cope with rising rent prices; moreover, cities are not capable of providing more citizens with living spaces without expanding residential zones. The more urban population rises, the harder it is to find a place to live. For example, local government officials announced that Astana has no more living spaces as the number of incoming migrants soared in recent years. Thus city administration either has to build new houses or forbid new citizens to move in Astana.
On the other hand, sometimes people are upset with the low number of parks in towns. There are simply less places to stay connected with nature by having a picnic among large trees and gorgeous flowers. Green areas are essential to residents for multiple reasons: they maintain cleaner air and positively impact our mental wellbeing. Therefore, natural recreational locations cannot be neglected due to the purposes they serve. A recent survey conducted by local officials report that Astana residents tend to support building new parks.
In conclusion, there is no reason for governments to stick with one option while neglecting the other one. My two cents would go for keeping a balance between expanding green areas and focusing on housing developments. This could be done by increasing the amount of living spaces while simultaneously providing sufficient number of green areas.