In many cities, there are areas of land that are used as parks. With increasing population levels, these areas would be better used to provide more housing. Do you agree or disagree?
In many major metropolitan areas, land is set aside for all members of the public to enjoy, and this is something that should remain as will now be discussed.
The main reason in support of retaining parkland is that it provides a communal area for people who may otherwise live in apartments or small houses without access to a garden. It has been well documented that time spent outdoors has clear health benefits, not only for exercise and fresh air, but also for mental health. Another reason is that increasing populations in urban areas has a number of negative subsidiary effects, such as the pressure on sanitation and clean water supplies. Replacing parks with more housing will only further compound this problem. In Mexico City, for example, the population is so dense that in many areas, delivery of fresh water supplies is under extreme pressure. On a related note, there is also an environmental advantage in having parkland, as it is a source of oxygen production which may otherwise be lacking in urban areas.
Admittedly, the level of the population relocating to urban areas in increasing for employment reasons as there are often more jobs available, and for this to be possible, additional land will need to be used for housing and this needs to be sourced near the place of work to avoid excess travel. However, it is arguable that it would be better to create larger suburbs than overcrowd centre of cities.
Overall, it is clear that there are no substantial advantages in removing these green areas, and given their advantages, they should be retained, and even expanded, wherever possible.
