There has been much controversy about whether vacant areas should be used for housing facilities or for parks, which could serve as a substitute for planting trees to benefit the surrounding environment. From my point of view, I completely agree with the idea of setting up parks in vacant areas instead of housing facilities.
Firstly, there is not enough safety for people to place those accommodation constructions. Considering the inherent conditions of the areas, for example, soil resources might have been exploited to build residences previously, making it difficult for people to build their houses in these places. Despite the argument that those buildings would provide affordable housing costs for people, it is not worth risking your safety just because of low prices. Similarly, it is possibly inconvenient for residents to access social infrastructures in the cities and towns, such as highways or shopping malls. This is because empty places are often located far from the cities or town centers, which unintentionally makes it unreasonable for the locals. If they were to decide to construct those infrastructures, it would consume unnecessarily huge expenses and resources.
Secondly, parks are at an advantage due to their flexibility, especially since their aims are often channeled towards nature. For instance, planting trees offers the environment a beneficial and long-term target, promoting freshness and environmental friendliness, which can improve people’s health and well-being preferences for new generations. From these advantages, they can be considered suitable for social gatherings and even new ecosystems for tourism, even though some individuals might prioritize convenience and cost over environmental friendliness.
In conclusion, while residential amenities might be suitable to construct in vacant areas, I am still maintaining my strong agreement with the notion that the development of parks in open areas brings people particularly beneficial fulfillment.