Many large cities are currently facing a housing crisis due to the scarcity of available land for new construction projects. The local government has proposed the idea of converting garden land for housing development as a potential solution, arguing that the land would be better utilized for housing purposes. However, I disagree with this viewpoint because it fails to consider the potential consequences of sacrificing garden land for housing.

Firstly, parks are vital public facilities that offer numerous benefits to society. Parks serve as spaces for sports, play, recreation, and community gatherings. Children can engage in physical activities like cycling or football in parks, promoting better physical health compared to those who spend their time solely on smartphones or playing video games at home.

Furthermore, parks act as the lungs of the city, playing a crucial role in reducing pollution levels in urban areas. Parks with large trees help maintain environmental balance, provide habitats for animals, and aid in flood prevention by absorbing water. For instance, the branches of ketapang trees often host birds, while the fibrous roots of these trees absorb water, thus preventing flooding.

In conclusion, while the housing crisis presents a significant challenge to major cities, I strongly oppose the proposed conversion of parkland for housing development. Parks, which act as the lungs of the city, contribute to physical and mental well-being, as well as overall environmental sustainability.


Many people are complaining about the lack of housing available for purchase in the city center, and this is clearly a problem caused by a shortage of land. An idea has been proposed to address this issue by converting the city’s green areas into housing blocks. I am against this idea because it would be difficult to live in a city without a garden or park at the heart of its residential area.

To begin with, living in the city center would undoubtedly offer numerous advantages. Firstly, residents of the central area would enjoy various facilities that come with the city’s development, such as quality hospitals, schools, and shopping malls. However, if an area is devoid of any parks, it will become gloomy and soon become overcrowded as people fill the housing blocks. Additionally, the risk of fire and flood would increase during extreme weather events because people would be living in close proximity to each other. Without any grounds, land, and trees to absorb water, the risk of flooding would multiply.

On the other hand, it is suggested that people should develop residential areas in satellite cities while also improving public transportation to and from the city center. This would be a much better solution, not only because housing prices would be much cheaper, but also because there would be a reduced risk of flood and fire. Furthermore, people would enjoy more green areas compared to those who force themselves to live in the city center. They could have picnics with their families in nearby gardens or engage in activities in communal spaces such as jogging, playing volleyball, cycling, and more. It is evident that people would have a more balanced life if they have green areas to improve the air quality in their residential areas.

In conclusion, I disagree with the notion of removing existing green areas in the middle of the metropolitan area solely for the sake of constructing more apartments. It would be unwise to go against nature in the first place.


error: Content is protected !!