The argument whether or not housing facilities should be constructed in the empty areas of towns instead of parks presented in this report. I strongly agree that the facilities should settle in the vacant areas of the cities the following reasons.
First of all, replacing parks with buildings will destroy the environment. In a polluted city with automobiles and skyscraper every , greeneries act like air filters. Not only it improve the air quality but also prevent people from getting dusty lungs. Removing the park means that it could worsen the health of the people in that town, especially the where they are prone to weakness.
Second, parks are filled with life and joy. In a city that is full of buildings, it is where people connect with nature. It can be various settings; walking dogs, exercising, and meeting new people. Destroying this avenue is equivalent to demolishing the communities and well- being of the people. While some parks been constructed since the birth of the town, it would become a monumental place and form a significant history.
Sure having new buildings in the middle of the town could mean that people are getting to experience the facilities, but it is important to note that there still fun in the park: playing traditional games, flying a kite, and hanging out with friends. It is crucial to preserve this. If not, then the future is most likely be buildings and technologies.