Cities and trees discuss both view

Many city and town planners believe that trees, instead of residential buildings, are crucial for the development of the modern city. In my agreement, I agree with this contention despite the legitimate benefits to increased housing in cities. Those who would rather build more residential buildings argue that both town and city populations are surging. Population figures globally are on the rise and it is logical to provide quality housing for all citizens. This is particularly true in rapidly growing nations such as China and India. The migration of individuals from the countryside to cities and outlying towns means that higher residential numbers have led to deteriorating sanitary conditions and increased pressure on the services that sustain cities such as public transportation. More housing would at least partly alleviate the issues that urban planners face and allow for more cogent plans for densely populated environments. Nonetheless, the importance of trees transcends the purely practical. For the average city and town resident, trees have aesthetic value. Take for example some of the best known cities in the world including Paris and New York City. The parks and gardens stand out and mitigate living apart from the natural world. Moreover, the more underprivileged segments of society are unlikely to be able to afford trips outside their immediate living vicinity. There is therefore a good chance that many younger children, particularly those in inner cities, will rarely experience nature and their lives will be limited to the dreary confines of the city. Over time, this can have a demoralising effect that is evidenced in the defeatist attitude common among less affluent children. In conclusion, the importance of housing to meeting rising population demands does not overshadow the importance of trees. Towns and cities must naturally balance these concerns to foster better living environments for residents.