Academic Writing Sample Answers Practice 16 Test 03

The conversion of urban parks and gardens is driven not only by population pressure but also by the way cities value land. Housing and commercial premises generate visible financial returns, whereas the benefits of open space are less easily recorded on a balance sheet. Although selective development can serve the public interest, I regard the trend as negative because it removes essential assets as cities grow denser.

The most immediate cause is intense competition for well-located land. Growing urban populations require homes, while businesses seek offices, shops and warehouses near customers and transport links. Building on a green site may appear faster than assembling plots or cleaning contaminated industrial land, because roads and utilities already exist nearby. High property prices strengthen this pressure by making every undeveloped parcel look economically inefficient.

Institutional incentives also matter. A municipality may obtain revenue by selling land or approving projects that enlarge its tax base, while continuing to maintain a public park creates an annual expense. Private gardens are similarly vulnerable when owners can profit by selling them to developers. Furthermore, planning decisions often measure the number of homes or jobs created but assign no equivalent figure to shade, rainwater absorption, recreation or neighbourhood character. This imbalance makes development benefits immediate and measurable, while environmental losses appear distant.

There are admittedly circumstances in which conversion is defensible. New housing in an established district can reduce commuting and limit outward expansion into farmland or natural habitats. A neglected, inaccessible patch of ground may also serve residents better as homes combined with a smaller, well-designed public space. However, these exceptions do not justify routinely treating functioning parks as vacant land. Their trees reduce heat, their soil absorbs rainfall, and their open areas support exercise and social contact. These services are especially important for lower-income residents who lack private gardens or the means to travel elsewhere. Once mature vegetation has been replaced by concrete, recreating it may take decades or become impossible.

In my view, cities should therefore meet demand by redeveloping empty buildings, brownfield sites and surface car parks, while permitting suitable increases in building height and density. Green areas should be assessed as connected infrastructure rather than isolated parcels, since losing several small spaces can damage an entire neighbourhood even if one major park survives.

Overall, urban growth and financial incentives explain why parks and gardens are disappearing. Yet the short-term gain in floor space generally comes at the cost of environmental resilience, public health and equal access to recreation, making this trend predominantly harmful.

Parks and gardens are increasingly being developed for housing and business use in many urban areas. This is mainly caused by rising demand for land and the financial value of construction. While such projects may provide useful buildings, I believe the overall development is negative because green space performs essential social and environmental functions.

One major reason is continuing urban population growth. As more people move to cities, local authorities face pressure to increase the number of homes, schools, shops and workplaces. Green areas are often located in established neighbourhoods where roads, electricity and public transport are already available, so building there can be simpler than creating a new district outside the city. In addition, urban land is expensive. Developers can earn substantial returns from apartments or commercial property, and landowners may therefore prefer construction to maintaining a garden. Governments may also approve these schemes because they promise jobs, tax income and a quick response to housing shortages.

This change can have some benefits. More centrally located homes may reduce long journeys from distant suburbs, and commercial buildings can support employment and local services. If a green site is abandoned, unsafe or unavailable to the public, redesigning part of it could make the land more useful. However, these advantages depend on the quality and location of each project and should not be used to support widespread loss of parks.

In most cases, the negative effects are greater. Parks give residents free places to exercise, relax and meet other people, which is particularly important for families living in small flats. Trees provide shade during hot weather, offer habitats for wildlife and help the ground absorb heavy rain. Removing green areas while adding more residents places additional pressure on whatever open space remains. It can also increase inequality because wealthier households may have private gardens, whereas poorer communities rely more heavily on public parks. Unlike a building, mature woodland or a well-established garden cannot be replaced quickly.

Cities should instead convert unused industrial sites, empty offices and large car parks, as well as allow taller housing in appropriate locations. These approaches can meet demand without automatically sacrificing valuable public land.

In conclusion, population pressure, high land values and financial incentives are causing green areas to be developed. Although this may create homes and jobs, the long-term loss of environmental protection and public space makes it a largely negative trend.

In a growing number of cities, parks and gardens are being removed to make space for homes, offices and shops. This is happening because urban land is limited and highly valuable. In my opinion, the trend is mainly negative, even though new development can help meet some important needs.

The first reason for this change is the rising demand for housing. City populations often increase as people move there for education and work, but the amount of land does not grow. Governments and developers therefore search for sites where homes can be built quickly. Parks and gardens may seem like convenient choices because they are open areas within neighbourhoods that already have roads and public services. There is also a strong financial reason. Commercial buildings and apartment blocks can produce rent, sales income and taxes, while maintaining a park costs money. As a result, both private owners and local governments may prefer development.

There are certain positive effects. New homes can reduce a housing shortage, and offices or shops can create jobs and provide useful services. Building inside the city may also prevent people from moving to distant suburbs and travelling long distances each day. Therefore, developing a small area of unused green land may sometimes be reasonable.

However, replacing well-used parks and gardens usually causes greater harm. These places allow residents to walk, exercise, play and meet friends without spending money. They are especially important to people who live in apartments and have no private outdoor space. Trees and plants also cool the surrounding area, provide homes for animals and help absorb rainwater. If more buildings and people are added while green space is reduced, cities can become hotter, more crowded and less pleasant. The loss is also difficult to reverse because mature trees take many years to grow.

Instead of building on parks, authorities should first use abandoned factories, empty buildings and unused car parks. They can also allow more housing on suitable sites that are already developed.

To conclude, housing demand and the high financial value of land explain why urban green spaces are disappearing. Although the new buildings may be useful, losing places that support health, community life and the environment makes this development negative overall.