Nowadays, the lack of space required to construct brand new habitations creates an important housing crisis in popular places, such as capital cities. Governments often push for this issue to be fixed by destroying park areas and replacing them with new lodgings, which is a solution I strongly disagree with. In this essay I will discuss why.
The main argument advanced by people in agreement with this construction plan often is that park areas are unuseful and therefore can be replaced without causing any harm. They tend to view parks as nonessential. However, parks are of the utmost importance, particularly in big cities. Indeed, they offer a crucial portion of greenery, well needed in urban spaces. These parks play a major role in limiting air pollution. Without them, health problems could arise.
Moreover, many people’s social lives could be negatively impacted if those parks were to disappear. They are a spot to reunite and spend time in community, which is very important, especially for young children’ well being.
A better solution would be to improve the quality of existing buildings, so families wouldn’t have to move away for bad conditions. As well as developing community buildings, so more people could live in the same spaces.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the idea that replacing parks by new buildings is the right solution to fix the housing crisis, because those parks are key in reducing pollution in big cities and improving its citizens’ health. They also are a central spot in people’s social lives, notably for children. Improving current buildings and creating a new way of living in community seems like more effective solutions to this serious issue.