Undeniably, housing crisis has become the most concerning problem in many metropolitans due to the lack of land for new buildings. While some local authorities suggest reassigning park land for the development of housing area, I would argue that park land should be preserved regardless of citizens’ needs because it is essential for both local community and environment.
First and foremost, park land serves as an important recreational space for residents to unwind and temporarily escape from the bustling urban life. For example, many residents enjoy strolling along the park in the evening to release their stress. Therefore, park land should not be replaced as residential area because it allows them to spend quality time with family, instead of immersing themselves into online entertainment. Even though the increasing population rises the demand for housing area, it’s unreasonable to deprive other people’s rights to relax at a greenery and scenic park nearby. In short, local governments should not develop park land into residences because it brings enormous benefits to the citizens.
Furthermore, park land with various trees and flowers is a major carbon sink amidst the increasingly polluted cities, which helps to absorb excessive carbon dioxide and releases oxygen into the atmosphere. Eventually, climate change, which is widely acknowledged as a global crisis, will be alleviated and the quality of air in cities will be greatly enhanced. On the contrary, if more residential areas are constructed by local councils, the amount of domestic waste such as plastic bags will increase significantly, making environmental pollution even more worrying.
In conclusion, I firmly disagree that park land should be reassigned to develop housing area as the importance of park land on local residents and the environment should not be neglected. Instead, governments should seek other effective measures in dealing with housing crisis to achieve a delicate balance between urban development and environmental sustainability.