Trying to eliminate green spaces

The past few months our city’s population grows, and green spaces are being replaced in order to satisfy and facilitate our residents’ needs. Proponents of this issue point out that affordable housing is much more imperative than parks, while others argue that parks and trees are essential for both the environment and the welfare of urban citizens. On the one hand, as the population is being widen abruptly every other day and our city is densely populated, houses are to a greater extent cardinal. Houses are the place where we spend most of our time in it. As the population accretes it stands to why housing is gradually increase. People choose to build a house in the place of a park because of the fact that parks are massive and have a lot of space. Many people live in small houses and in terribly conditions, so it is preferable to construct a block of flats in the middle of a park. On the other hand, as long as houses are of great importance so are parks and trees. Parks provide space for neighborhood residents to interact with each other and meet new people. They are also great spaced for events and for people to engage in recreational activities. This allows people to develop a sense of community. Increasing the number of parks also reduces crime rates, especially among teenagers. By meeting at an open and a safe place to interact with one another and they keep people off streets. It seems obvious that a region where people are able to make connections is good for locals’ mental health condition. After all, physical health and strong relationships are imperative to maintaining mental well-being. To sum up, I believe that people should support that housing is important but so are parks and green spaces. If people want to construct more houses because of the population growth they should make a better research on the places rather than building a house in a place of a park.