Some people think that the best way to reduce the time spent in travelling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

It has been a debatable question whether parks and gardens should be replaced by high-rise buildings to decrease people’s commuting

time

. In my view,

although

green areas are essential in metropolitan cities, people are supposed to give priority to building apartments where commuters can live in close proximity to their working places. Some citizens advocate that building apartments are definitely necessary with the process of

population

shift, which allows employees to minimize the

time

going to work as much as possible.

For instance

, if the period of travelling no longer takes away people’s precious

time

, they will spend an amount of

time

working in companies or enjoying themselves after works;

hence

, individuals are able to live at a slower pace and possibly feel a great sense of happiness.

By contrast

, others believe that the replacement of parks and gardens might not address the thorny problems in commuting

time

efficiently, whereas it may cause various urban matters

such

as

population

density, environmental degradation and traffic congestion.

For example

, if public green spots are replaced by new-built houses, cities will be overcrowded due to highly serious

population

density. Meanwhile, the climbing

population

will pose a threat to traffic systems and public transportation sectors;

therefore

, citizens will spend more

time

travelling than they expect. To summarize, there is no doubt that parks and gardens are irreplaceable parts of modern cities.

However

, actions should be taken by governments in building more apartments, which enable the staff to have abundant choices to select their homes in order to save

time

in travelling.