Many major cities are facing a housing crisis as they cannot provide enough land for new buildings. Some local governments believe the problem could be solved by reassigning park land for residential development, because this land would be better used for housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Shifts in the housing crisis are happening across the globe and getting humans driven to more meaningful and purposeful experiences thanks to their functionality and spirituality. Under this circumstance, this has raised a concern among those who believe that the problem could be solved by reassigning park land for residential development - which is better used for housing. In the personal perspective, I totally disagree with this statement as explicitly explained below. First and foremost, it is worth considering that reassigning park land can wreak havoc on green areas and leisure activities for residents. Regarding the former, pollution caused by cars, factories and the burning of fossil fuels is turning for the worse, therefore park land with green trees is a functional tool to support/assist purify the air. According to Earthnews. com reported in 2020, trees provide oxygen for people to breathe and at the same time absorb harmful gases, dust and so on, reducing harmful gases released into the environment, helping to make the air fresher. When it comes to the latter, the conversion of parks into buildings will reduce outdoor playgrounds for residents living nearby, leaving no place for households to play and take a walk. As long as people keep transforming green areas into new buildings, not only the environment is destroyed but also recreational activities for dwellers will be reduced. Therefore, the profound implications of reassigning park land should be taken into serious consideration. Second of all, it should be noticeable that reassigning park land can have harm done on cities infrastructure.