Some people think that the best way to reduce the time spent travelling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city centre with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Sample 1: Some People Think that The Best Way to Reduce the Time Spent Travelling
It goes without saying that playgrounds play an essential role in an individual’s life and, due to the gradually increasing intensity of communities reckon that, occupy the recreational grounds with other sorts of buildings. At the same time, others and I disagree with the notion. However, both arguments need proper scrutiny before forming an opinion.
On the one hand, it is true that traveller disburses their ample time travelling for the purpose of work, so it is crucial to reduce the time frame and saves that time for productivity, thus, leading to easily getting familiar with their ambience of the workplace and improve their recognition in that company. In that case, the garden area must be replaced with private property in favour of workers. This is because traffic congestion has steadily skyrocketed the modes of transport often get delayed. For instance, in the USA, a survey conducted by the local company found a majority of commuters getting late due to traffic jams and rapid increase in the country, moreover, due to invalid constructions of Station, subway and numerous roads, which eventually disturb the daily cycle of passengers and spend an extremely long time on them. In addition, some companies offer apartments near the workplace along with the biological garden, which makes it an easier lifestyle for individuals rather than being late in traffic.
On the other hand, green space is the main key principle in the lifestyle of individuals, and I do not agree with the advice of replacing the parks with buildings. However, it is a kind of discrimination among the people who live in a society that leads to some devasting aspects in the community. Firstly, public areas consider an integral part of people’s lives. Without the parks, the quality of life would have plummeted because people’s lives are not only full of work and carrier, for instance, due to the huge inclination of carbon dioxide absorbed in the atmosphere, leading to massive health consequences in individual’s lives. In addition, such recreational spaces can provide an abundance of amenities, which children are engaged in socialising themselves in the playground. Furthermore, the construction of high-tech apartments will increase the density of the population, and the whole area will be occupied shortly, so in that case, management needs to give the interference in favour of society, so this practice should be neglected.
In the end, after analysing both sides of the argument, I believe that the greenbelt pronounces as a green space and safe environment instead of replacing it with other buildings. Therefore, finding another alternative for commuters is the best possible way to sort that issue rather than changing the facility of parks.
Sample 2: Some People Think that The Best Way to Reduce the Time Spent Travelling
The issue of whether to replace parks and gardens near city centers with apartment buildings for commuters is a topic that raises questions about urban planning, environmental preservation, and the well-being of residents. While some argue that such a move can reduce commute times, others contend that it comes at the cost of essential green spaces. In this essay, I will discuss both viewpoints and provide my opinion on this matter.
Proponents of this view argue that the scarcity of housing in city centers leads to long commutes for many workers. By replacing parks and gardens with apartment buildings, they believe that the proximity to workplaces will reduce commute times, alleviate traffic congestion, and decrease pollution. Additionally, this approach can contribute to denser urban living, making public transportation more feasible and accessible. Furthermore, these advocates suggest that well-planned apartment buildings can incorporate green spaces within their designs, offering residents the benefits of nature while eliminating the need for distant parks and gardens.
Opponents of this idea emphasize the importance of preserving parks and gardens in urban areas. Green spaces provide essential recreational areas for residents, improving mental and physical well-being. They offer a place for relaxation, exercise, and community interaction, contributing to a higher quality of life in densely populated city centers. Additionally, green spaces play a vital role in environmental sustainability. They help combat urban heat islands, improve air quality, and provide habitats for local wildlife. Eliminating parks and gardens may exacerbate environmental issues and negatively impact the overall health of the city and its residents.
In my opinion, achieving a balance between urban development and environmental preservation is crucial. While reducing commute times is desirable, it should not come at the cost of losing essential green spaces. Urban planners should explore innovative solutions that allow for the construction of apartments while maintaining or creating green areas within the city. Mixed-use developments that combine residential spaces with well-designed parks and gardens can offer the best of both worlds. Such designs can enhance the quality of life for residents, promote a sustainable environment, and create vibrant, livable urban spaces.
In conclusion, the debate over replacing parks and gardens near city centers with apartment buildings for commuters involves weighing the benefits of reduced commute times against the drawbacks of losing vital green spaces. Striking a balance between urban development and environmental considerations is key to creating vibrant, sustainable, and livable cities. By carefully planning and designing urban spaces that incorporate both residential and green areas, cities can address the needs of commuters while ensuring the well-being of their residents and the environment.
Sample 3: Some People Think that The Best Way to Reduce the Time Spent Travelling
The issue of whether to replace parks and gardens near city centers with apartment buildings for the convenience of commuters has sparked a debate on urban planning priorities, green spaces, and the overall quality of life. While some advocate for this approach to minimize commute times, others assert the importance of preserving natural areas in urban landscapes. In this essay, I will examine both perspectives and provide my opinion on this matter.
Those in favor of replacing parks and gardens argue that the scarcity of housing in city centers forces many workers to endure long and stressful commutes. By constructing apartment buildings close to workplaces, they believe that the daily travel time can be significantly reduced, leading to improved work-life balance and enhanced well-being. This reduction in commuting can also alleviate traffic congestion and contribute to environmental sustainability by decreasing carbon emissions. Moreover, proponents suggest that modern urban planning can integrate green spaces within apartment complexes, ensuring that residents still have access to nature. This approach may offer the dual benefits of shorter commutes and accessible green areas.
On the other hand, opponents of replacing parks and gardens emphasize the holistic advantages of preserving these natural spaces. Parks and gardens offer crucial recreational areas for urban dwellers, providing a serene escape from the hustle and bustle of city life. The presence of green spaces is associated with mental rejuvenation, physical exercise, and community engagement. Environmental considerations also come into play. Urban greenery helps regulate temperature, improves air quality, and supports biodiversity. Replacing these areas with apartment buildings could lead to increased heat, reduced air quality, and loss of habitat for wildlife, potentially undermining the overall livability of the city.
In my opinion, a balanced approach is essential to address the needs of commuters without compromising the benefits of green spaces. While shortening commute times is a worthy goal, it should not come at the expense of urban aesthetics, environmental health, and overall well-being. Instead of replacing parks and gardens entirely, urban planners should explore ways to integrate housing solutions while maintaining or enhancing green spaces. Mixed-use developments that combine residential spaces with well-designed parks and gardens can harmonize both viewpoints. By incorporating nature into urban environments, cities can offer an efficient living solution for commuters without sacrificing the physical and mental health benefits of natural areas.
In conclusion, the debate over replacing city-center parks and gardens with apartment buildings to reduce commute times centers around the trade-off between convenience and quality of life. Striking a balance by integrating housing and green spaces can lead to more sustainable and livable cities. By considering the advantages of both approaches, urban planners can ensure that commuters have efficient access to their workplaces while preserving the natural beauty and environmental health of their surroundings.
Leave a Reply