In some cities, it is being discussed to convert natural areas, such as parks to new housing projects. However, a portion of the population oppose this idea and advocates for natural beauty to keep untouched. Further arguments will be discussed in the following paragraphs but, in my opinion, these areas should keep protected.
Councils defend that living cost crisis has evolve to such level, it became almost impossible to find housing in major cities. The phenomenon can most easily observed in the UK in London. For an example, in order to obtain a housing with the condition of acceptable commute time, one should be paying 120% of their income towards rent. Clearly this is impossible, therefore converting natura areas to apartments and running by councils would be beneficial both for general public and government.
On the other hand, this would be killing the very little soul left in these particular cities. Throughout the history, nature has always been an escape route for the people. In fact, this is not only methaporechelly, also very much physcally. In Istanbul the situation is so severe, it is always being mentioned by professionals. They believe, in the expected Istanbul earthquake, population of this city will have no place to temporarily satisfy their housing needs. Furthermore, casualties caused by this might be even more significant than the effects of the initial earthquake. Additionally, there is already very limited to none natural spaces are being hold in these cities. Consequently, air pollution is quite high. As a result, a scheme of getting extra tax from outsider cars are protocol in some cities, keeping these areas would be equally useful.
To summarise, there is an obvious housing problem in the hand, but destroying the limited natural habitat is a harmful fix to the issue. In my opinion, it should be encouraged to expand and create new mini-cities.