Band 7+: Many major cities are facing a housing crisis as they cannot provide enough land for new buildings. Some local governments believe the problem could be solved by reassigning park land for residential development, because this land would be better used for housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a problem with providing houses in mega cities due to the lack of land for new buildings. Some local authorities hold the view that park lands should be used for building residential areas. This essay completely disagrees with this statement as this will lead to an increase in air pollution and shortage of open spaces.

First and foremost, urban air contamination is a serious problem in many big cities, where it reaches high levels. Trees and vegetation in parks can significantly improve air quality. Therefore this will have positive effect on people who suffer respiratory diseases, namely asthma. For example, numerous studies have shown health benefits green belts bring to a city and its dwellers.

Moreover, nowadays megapolises have insufficient open spaces, which means residents live in dense urban environments. This might pose a threat to the city in case of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. Collapsed buildings can block the roads for emergency help and evacuation. For example, it is considered that parks and other public open spaces are the safest locations to be after an earthquake due to building collapse and falling debris.

In conclusion, I take the view that parks cannot be replaced by concrete buildings as this will inevitably damage city’s environment and as well as they are vital to the city remain functional during and after cataclysms.