A lot of cities do not have a sufficient amount of land to provide places for living to people. Therefore, this issue is thought by local governments to might be solved via turning parks into a residential area. While this suggestion could be helpful in some occasions, I believe that removing such destinations as parks will negatively impact cities.
I will start with supportive evidences of this approach. First of all, the importance of residents’ well-being should be prioritized, rather than the excistence of parks. In other words, if there is no other choice of finding additional land, then sacrificing enjoyment of people for the sake of their health and life would be a wise decision.
On the other hand, replacing parks with residential buildings can negatively affect cities. Firstly, such practice could lead to a loss of cultural identity. Specifically, parks might have something that is greatly appreciated among locals and foreigners. For example, in Kazakhstan, we have some statues of widely-known historical identities, and demolishing them will make the country less unique, comparing to others. Not only that, but local people will also dislike such changes, since most of them value such representations of their cities. Instead, local governments should try to use the place between cities, if it is possible.
In conclusion, if there is no opportunity expanding the city, then removing parks might be suitable to tackle the housing problem. In other cases, it will be more beneficial to leave parks due to their value for people.