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? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
As the topic sentence suggests, a lot of major
cities
are confronting a severe housing problem without enough capacity to give space for novel buildings. Although
some governments argue that this
can be solved by demolishing parks
to compensate for the needs, I strongly disagree with this
idea because ruining the parks
with natural landscapes will harm people
’s health and there are other options such
as urging exporting people
and companies outside of the city area.
First,
just making space by destroying the existing buildings and parks
does not solve the fundamental problems; the major cities
are too crowded for people
to live comfortably. Therefore
, governments should pay attention to distributing this
burden to the countryside
, where they hold various problems because of the shortage of workforce. For example
, in Japan, in the midst of COVID-19, people
were inevitably urged to work far from other people
and every meeting was switched to online, which enabled many people
to live in comfortable rural areas and people
have noticed its merits, now there are more people
who choose to live in the suburbs and countryside
.
Second,
demolishing the natural parks
will harbour many problems not only for the environment but also
for people
’s mental and physical health. In other words
, in contrast
to the countryside
, people
seldom find a place such
as a playground, traffic for running or walking, and a park to feel relaxed in cities
and destroying such
precious places makes it almost impossible for anyone to maintain their health. For instance
, in Tokyo in Japan, there are more individuals suffering from depression or other mental illnesses compared to those in the countryside
and some people
have completely recovered from the depression just by moving outside of the city area surrounded by a more cheerful atmosphere and more nature.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the idea of making space for living or business by ruining the existing parkland because it will do more harm than merit for local people
and governments should seek for redistribution of the workforce and residents outside of the major cities
.Submitted by kana_ayaki on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
coherence
To enhance the clarity of your essay, try breaking down long sentences into shorter, more manageable ones. This will make your ideas easier to follow.
coherence
Ensure complete coherence by providing a smooth transition between your examples and your main arguments. Connect your ideas more explicitly to make the essay more cohesive.
task response
Add a brief summary of your main points in the conclusion to reinforce your argument and make the essay feel well-rounded.
task response
Be cautious with your word choice. In the sentence 'urging exporting people and companies,' consider rephrasing to 'encouraging people and companies to relocate outside the city area' for more natural phrasing.
task response
Your essay presents a clear stance on the issue and backs it up with relevant examples and arguments, which demonstrates strong task achievement.
coherence
The introduction and conclusion effectively frame the essay, giving it a clear starting point and a strong finish.
task response
Your main points are well-supported with specific examples, making your argument more convincing.