Amidst the fast-paced societies, many people advocate the fact that it is of importance to substantially allocate funds to the public outdoors within urban areas, while others’ viewpoints showcase that such does not necessarily exist. Although acknowledging the tremendous merits that it could bring to citizens, I suppose that huge investments poured into outdoor public spots rather than other indispensable services is somewhat irrational.
Apparently, city dwellers, those who support the introduction of public spaces, are mostly benefited from this, which also means that their quality lives are significantly enhanced associated with the construction of such. The primary positive impact of this is to yield to urban inhabitants a better sense of community. Gathering venues has brought to citizens places to free-of-charge socializing, respite from daily life pressure, or connecting with nature, which might seem trivial at first, but it is incredibly indispensable. To illustrate, during the pandemic, people living in urban towns were seemingly vulnerable to stress, depression, and psychological issues compared to those living in other areas. This was due to the fact that cities often came up with harsher regulations to distance interpersonal relationships, which also include banning citizens from uniting within public areas until the epidemic ends. Moreover, allocating substantial resources to expansive outdoor public places is a two-sided investment. With the emergence of public places, numerous jobs would appear, leading to lower rates of unemployment, ultimately improving an overall economic development within the local areas.
As opposed to the aforementioned benefits, which seem easily urgent, the drawbacks of large-scale public spaces are often trivial at first glance, but overtime, they are critical to local residents, those who previously benefited from this. To be specific, heavy investment in constructing outdoor spaces could result in the lack of essential budgets towards other more important issues, such as education or traffic. It might be even worse, as these could be relegated to the back burner in order to reorient cities to serve as tourism destinations instead. Furthermore, the money required for infrastructure maintenance is parallel to the budgets utilized for construction, so as time goes by, this could create financial burdens for the local governments. At the very worst, those potent people might stop investing in these fields, leading to the uncountable joblessness of previous job recipients.
In conclusion, a huge number of investments are seemingly beneficial for their positive impact on the mental and physical well-beings of local people and the job abundance. However, it is somewhat unideal in the long run and needed to be thoughtfully considered by the local authorities.