Parks, Farmland, Houses

While some argue that converting public parks and farmland into residential areas is a beneficial approach, I largely agree with the viewpoint that such initiatives are misguided. The proponents of this policy highlight its positive impact on alleviating overcrowding in cities.

As urban areas have become increasingly dense due to mass migrations, expanding cities by incorporating nearby farmland seems like a viable solution. Major metropolitan areas like Tokyo and Mexico City have resorted to spreading into neighboring lands to accommodate their growing populations. This expansion enables more people to live in cities and enjoy improved living standards, better healthcare, enhanced economic opportunities, and a wide range of entertainment options. Undeniably, these benefits are significant for the average resident.

However, the development of new housing often disregards the importance of the natural world. Firstly, constructing homes on farmland not only destroys pristine natural areas but also necessitates transporting agricultural products over greater distances. This can exacerbate environmental issues and potentially lead to higher food costs for the average person. Furthermore, cities lacking in parks fail to provide an optimistic living environment for their residents. While wealthier individuals may have the means to venture to outlying areas frequently, the absence of parks deprives the less privileged classes of opportunities to experience nature. A life devoid of contact with the natural world is undeniably bleak.

In conclusion, despite the potential benefits of addressing population density in cities, the conversion of public parks and farmland into residential areas has an overall negative impact on the natural environment and the quality of life in cities. Therefore, it is advisable to pursue such proposals with moderation and careful consideration.