Whether a majority of big cities are glamping with a solution of housing crisis. It is believed by some governal councils that reassigning park land can answer this existence of the issue which would be better for housing. To some extent, I partly agree with the suggestion while it can cause some problem to citizen which would be mentioned in following paragraphs.
On the one hand, establishing park areas can generate some beneficial living value to residents. Firstly, park is is a symbol of refreshing site. It precisely reflect its environmentally friendly and green atmospheres so people may love to work out and chill in those of this place, escaping from the hustle. Secondly, park architecture can cultivate children’s mental health and awareness of nature. In such a tied schedule places as schools or cities, children should be reminded of by natural places, where can erase their boreness and anxiety of school pressures and teach them about environmental protection. For example, when a child has witnessed how a park is preserved, they cannot ignore a piece of garbage unconsciously threw on the ground.
Building park land, on the other hand, can pose a huge problem of living places. As numerous buildings destructed and giving place to park, a large number of citizen faces to a lack of inhabitance. In term of exchanging value, the benefits sometimes cannot outweigh the negative outcomes, in this case as it is not everyone can afford to transfer their accommodation and pay for apartment in this instable-living era.
In conclusion, though reassigning park is a good way to deal with heated housing crisis, it leads to following evitable problems of living places. It is recommended that a blend solution can reach a better answers, which can secure the residents’ inhabitant and solve housing crisis as well.