Some people think that the best way to reduce the time spent in traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city centre with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree, discuss both sides and give your opinion.

It is generally claimed that people spend their enormous time on traveling to visit workplace. A handful people purpose that if parks were replaced with apartment buildings, it would be easier for commuters to commute. While this practice is positive, I personally believe that it has some negative impact which can not be overlooked; however, this easy will discuss both sides with logical opinion ahead. Commencing with the most important reason that why people believe changing parks with skyscrapers is advantageous because; prominently it saves energy and cost which the spend on travel. TO explain it, many workers spend their time on traveling, which make them exhausted. Therefore, if enough apartments were constructed in the busy centre more employee would live near their workplace, as shorten the distance between their home and office, offering a reduction in people's daily commute. Nevertheless, those who are argue on this phenomenon because they have valid reason. Predominantly, parks play vital role in individuals live. That means if parks were reduced, the would not have space for doing outdoor activities and socializing with others. Mostly children an d old people spend their time in gardens to reduce their stress. consequently, building tall buildings can be proven disadvantage not only for children and elderly, but also negative for environment, as green space enhances the beauty of nature, if it cut down pollution would increase. As a consequences, parks are important for environment. To recapitulate, although building apartment buildings near the workplace is beneficial for workers, yet it has detrimental impact on the leisure activities of those who love to spent time in parks; hence parks are more vital than apartment buildings.