Housing crisis is one of the most significant problem that many metropolitan cities currently have to face in order to offer people a place to live. Since new buildings could not be built because of the lack of residential areas, local governments suggest to reassign park land for residential purposes. In my opinion, wise administrations should look for, and carefully assess, alternatives before authorizing the use of green land for housing.
It is undoubtedly true that several factors have caused a rapid increase on housing demand, such as the sudden growth of population, the job opportunities offered by major cities as well as the presence of high recognized universities. However, it is not the case to solve this problem creating another (and more significant) issue. Indeed, reassigning park land for residential development means eliminating not only trees and greens, but also harming the flora and fauna that has grown up over time. The impact on the environment is currently unknown, but some consequences could be already seen.
In order to avoid deforestation and drawbacks on climate environment, local administration should look for wise alternatives. Firstly, governments could offer tax benefit for housing companies to build buildings vertically. Furthemore, administrations could facilitate the construction of public houses as well as student residences in order to alleviate the probl-em and offer to people a wide number of places all in one.
In conclusion, before governments decide to reassign park land for residential development, it should be assessed all the possible alternatives that have a less significant impact on environment.