Some people stand for building houses in vacant areas of cities, while others think that it is better to use them for setting up parks there. I strongly believe that parks are the better solution, still, it depends on certain circumstances.
Many people want more housing spaces in cities where there is a lot of free space. They count it as a good economic decision, which is true in many cases. For instance, in China, there was stable economic growth for decades, and increasing the amount of accommodation played not the least role in that case. Obviously, people move to cities, labor expands, manufacturing factories have new workers who need new living spaces, also producing a lot of work for building companies. But it is an awful solution for nature and the quality of air, so for me it would not be a good decision.
On the other hand, some people believe that increasing park spaces would help cities more than setting up buildings. They think that more households kill the environment and, by that, lead to a worse standard of living. And that is true; for example, let us look at Northern European countries. They put a huge effort into making their environment greener, and at the same time, they are some of the most effective economies in the world. They do not seek financial benefits from uncountable cheap accommodations; instead, they implement smart features into their living, and one of them is a healthy environment which increases the quality of living.
In conclusion, it can be said that some people want to set up more housing seeking economic benefits but losing the condition of the environment, whereas others think that it is better to set up parks there and provide better living. I support the second statement more.