Some people believe that in order to reduce the amount of time people spend commuting , parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings. Others disagree with this idea. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that in order to reduce the amount of time people spend commuting ,  parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings. Others disagree with this idea. 

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

In recent years, the amount of time people spend commuting to work has significantly increased. This has led to a debate on whether parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings to reduce the commuting time. While some people believe that this is a feasible solution, others disagree. In this essay, I will discuss both views and give my opinion on the matter.

Those in favour of replacing parks and gardens with apartment buildings argue that it will help reduce the commuting time of people who work in the city centre. They believe that by having more apartment buildings close to the workplace, people will be able to walk or cycle to work, reducing their dependence on cars or public transportation. Furthermore, they argue that apartment buildings will provide affordable housing for those who cannot afford to live in the city centre, reducing the burden of commuting to work.

On the other hand, those who disagree with this idea believe that parks and gardens are essential for the well-being of city residents. They argue that green spaces provide a place for people to relax and unwind after a long day at work. Additionally, parks and gardens act as a buffer against air and noise pollution, which is essential for maintaining the health and well-being of city residents. Moreover, green spaces help to regulate the temperature of the city, reducing the impact of heatwaves and other extreme weather conditions.

In my opinion, replacing parks and gardens with apartment buildings is not a feasible solution to reduce commuting time. While it may help some people who work in the city centre, it will have adverse effects on the well-being of city residents. Parks and gardens provide an essential space for people to relax and unwind, and the benefits of green spaces far outweigh the benefits of apartment buildings. Furthermore, the lack of green spaces in the city centre may lead to an increase in air and noise pollution, which is detrimental to the health and well-being of city residents.

Instead of replacing parks and gardens with apartment buildings, city planners should focus on improving public transportation and infrastructure. By providing affordable and efficient public transportation, people will be encouraged to use it, reducing their dependence on cars. Furthermore, by improving infrastructure such as bike lanes and pedestrian paths, people will be able to walk or cycle to work, reducing their commuting time. Additionally, providing incentives such as tax breaks for companies that offer flexible working hours or remote working options will help reduce the number of people commuting to work.

In conclusion, while some people believe that replacing parks and gardens with apartment buildings is a feasible solution to reduce commuting time, I disagree. The benefits of green spaces far outweigh the benefits of apartment buildings, and city planners should focus on improving public transportation and infrastructure instead. By doing so, we can reduce the commuting time of people who work in the city centre, without compromising the well-being of city residents.