There has been ongoing debate about whether city administrations should prioritize green spaces rather than residential developments. I partially disagree with this claim, and I believe authorities should focus on people’s primary needs in living.
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 met problems with meeting house demands as the number of incoming migrants sharply increased in recent years. Thus, city administrations either have to build new houses or limit the migration into Astana.
On the other hand, sometimes people are upset with the low number of parks in towns. There are simply 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 . Therefore, natural recreational locations cannot be neglected due to their benefits for mental health and the environment. A recent survey conducted by local officials 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. 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.