Many cities replace farmlands and parks with houses. Is it positive or negative?

Due to people immigrating from rural areas into metropolitan areas, the need for accommodation will be increased compared to the past.

Consequently

, most governments for providing more houses because of the lack of empty land in an urban district turn to destroying green lands in the vicinity of urban areas.

This

action will have numerous destructive environmental and city effects, as expressed below. The

first

argument concerns the rising population in a city; it causes a significant problem

such

as overpopulation. One of its effects is the lack of employment in the bustling city.

Thus

, some people cannot afford living expenses and may turn to shoplifting or robbing.

In addition

, housing costs are considerably higher in most crowded cities because of housing shortages than in sparsely populated towns.

Then

the rate of poverty and homelessness drastically rises, especially in poor districts. A

second

but equally important point highlights that when more population settles down in metropolis, more environmental problems will be created by swapping land use of green land for the residential area. Primarily, towns need more energy like electricity and gas to keep lights on and

houses

Change the verb form

house

show examples

warm,

therefore

directly escalating the greenhouse effect by using

further

fossil fuels.

Lastly

, the number of vehicles rises for people’s daily commute or transfers. As a consequence, the rate of cars producing emissions will significantly increase. To conclude, substituting farmlands or parks with residential buildings to accommodate more people is not logical.

Hence

, governments must struggle with crowding and environmental issues. As mentioned before, sprawling cities entail adding job opportunities

besides

generating extra energy.