Some people argue that spaces in urban areas would be better used as parks rather than for residential houses. In my opinion, I believe that constructing a park in a crowded city will give benefits to both humans and the environment, while housing areas in urban spaces provide occupants with high-quality facilities that can be accessed publicly.
A park in a city plays an important role in balancing humans and the environment. A busy city without a park may cause natural disasters, like floods. If this happens, buildings can be damaged, and it will cause significant financial losses. That is the reason why a park must exist, because it can reduce the possibility of floods by planting some trees, which will help absorb rainwater with their roots. Another reason it is important is that people visiting the park will have a less stressed mind afterward, because it is refreshing and calming. Thus, they can have work-life balance that will boost their work performance and keep their minds healthy.
Building residential housing in urban areas will let the occupants easily access various city public facilities. For example, well-organized public transportation is provided in different types, which can be used based on their needs, and they can easily travel anywhere. However, those advantages are only owned by the occupants themselves. Urban spaces used for only personal benefits are a big waste of land and money.
In conclusion, land use for parks is beneficial to save the environment from floods and for human work-life balance. On the other hand, urban land use for housing will give benefits only to the occupants themselves.