Housing development has become a major trend in the last few decades, therefore cities are becoming bigger and the air in them is becoming more polluted. As a result, some suggest to prioritize parks over building new living facilities but this might be too radical.
The main reason for cities growing is urbanization, meaning the people from countrysides move to economical centers, which leads to the increased demand in the housing markets. On the other hand, there is a demand for clean air and places where residents could walk and rest which conflicts with the initial demand. Consequently, this leaks into situations when cities administrations simply are not able to fulfill both and must choose, and the choice is almost every time house building.
To solve this tough problem, some architects came up with the idea where the main priority is balance, when there is an adequate number of houses and enough space for parks. For instance, cities can be built by small separate blocks which include both places to live and park zones. This suggestion is a perfect fit for the initial ecological problem and the dilema. Because this concept provides people with living facilities and places to walk and rest, as well as prevents air pollution.
Overall, I disagree with the idea of prioritizing Parks over housing development because in this question the priorities should the be balance between building and nature