Parks Close to City Centers Should be Replaced IELTS Essay

Parks Close to City Centers Should be Replaced IELTS Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Some people believe that to reduce the amount of time people spend travelling to work, parks and gardens close to city centres should be replaced with apartment buildings for commuters to live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Parks Close to City Centers Should be Replaced IELTS Essay

Cities have already been regarded as the ‘concrete jungles’ due to lesser greener spaces. Further wiping out the locality parks and lawns to provide living space to the working people in order to reduce their travel time would perhaps benefit people. However, I do not agree with this statement due to notable reasons.

The idea of clearing gardens and parks from the cities will be less helpful but pose more danger to the inhabitants as a whole. Firstly, a locality with just bricks and walls everywhere, but no lush greenery around, renders it lifeless and apathetic. Also, parks have a direct impact on the health of the inhabitants since these are not only the places covered with turf and trees but also the places to improve their lungs for many people, better places to walk and perform yoga for others, playgrounds for children, better places for artists to work and finally preferred places to spend leisure time.

Furthermore, when it comes to the practical aspects of this situation it has many drawbacks linked to it as well. Such as the more housing apartments in the city are, the more inflation can be. This ultimately makes it difficult for people to buy houses. Moreover, it will increase the congestion in the cities which further cause pollution and makes the place unfit for living. Diseases like bronchitis and asthma are already quite common in urban areas, however, more congestion will further aggravate these diseases.

In my opinion, rather than replacing parks and gardens with buildings, finer transportation facilities are a good solution to reduce the travel time of commuters.

IELTS Essay on Infrastucture

A controversy arises when some argue converting parks and gardens in city centers to residential apartments would be a wise idea to save the time of employees who travel to work. I would stand with those who oppose this idea.

The reason behind this proposal might be because they feel that parks, gardens and other historical buildings are locations where vertical buildings can be erected, which can shelter a sizeable proportion of people. When this can be given as accommodation slots for those who travel to work, they could save both time as well as money. The employers can also find employees who can work over-time, if this happens. Finally, it eases the traffic congestion during peak hours, and cuts down the air pollution rate.

On the contrary, the opponents of such a move point at the risk of making the city center more crowded and suffocated. To be precise, when these frequently commuting employees are stationed close to city centers, more facilities are required for them. This is not only an economic liability for the city authorities, but also a social responsibility. When gardens and parks, the only available spaces for the city-dwellers to breathe fresh air disappear, they would be more suffocated, and this might have serious consequences on their mental and physical health.

In my opinion, with the advancements of technology, more people are working online from their own homes when compared to the past, and I see this as a better solution than what is suggested.

To conclude, the idea of replacing gardens and parks in city centers to accommodate employees who frequently travel in and out of the city appears to be beneficial in multiple ways. However, when advanced technology is there to tackle the issue, it is better not to change the present ambience of a city.

IELTS Essay Agree Disagree

Ever since the industrial revolution, travelling time to work had sparked heated debate in society. While there are residents who suggested replacing public entertaining areas is the best strategy to reduce time spent on travelling to work, others disagree with such a statement. In this essay, I will discuss both opinions along with examples of why I believe this indeed is not an effective strategy.

It is undeniable commuters spend a lot of time travelling to work daily. Therefore, if public areas such as parks and gardens are replaced by buildings for residency purposes, people who lived closer to the city would have saved a lot of personal time. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, many had begun to work from home, which had spared them their own time to concentrate on personal growth as well as improving mental health. As less time is used on travelling, individuals achieved a work-life balance through participating in their favorite leisure and exercise. (scientific research has shown exercising can reduce individual stress and improves sleep quality)

Although reducing individual travel time caused people to have more of their own time to participate in exercise, the lack of greenery will undoubtedly destroy the ecosystem which may bring detrimental consequences to the environment and residents. If the government destroy the parks and gardens, there will be no plants in the city to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. As a result, this may lead to air pollution while reducing the quality of living. Nevertheless, reports have shown that air pollution has disastrous influence on the health of human beings in urban areas since twenty century, including lung cancer and strep throat. Therefore, with a reasonable amount of flora, the problem of carbon dioxide and other air-polluted contaminants can be alleviated in urban areas.

In conclusion, even lessening people’s work travel time is necessary, in my opinion, replacing greenery in central suburbs is not the best idea to tackle such issue.

Some people believe that to reduce the amount of time people spend travelling to work

Travel to the workplace is mandatory for the people living in urban areas. Some of them believe that the parks and gardens have to be replaced by constructing apartments, especially in the metro cities, which saves immense time for travel. However, others do not agree with the above statement. This essay will discuss both views and explains why the former is a better choice.

People who live nearby their workplaces find it convenient to travel to their offices. To begin with, constructing apartments and gated communities in downtown areas eventually leads to rapid urbanization. It saves a lot of time, and they get to spend more time with their families. For instance, these buildings consist of numerous amenities such as a gym, play area, and pool integrated within the same locality. Additionally, the employees feel safe and secure to return to their homes if they are preoccupied with important jobs. Lastly, it is more economical rather than spending huge amounts on transport.

Nevertheless, setting up such huge buildings and demolishing areas of fauna is always a threat to mankind. Firstly, destroying parks and gardens impacts various environmental changes. The oxygen levels are falling rapidly due to the destruction of trees. For example, global warming is increasing at a high level which affects people all over the world. Secondly, the public is suffering from numerous health problems due to the changes in the environment. Hence, replacing natural resources by constructing buildings will lead to many challenges in the near future.

To recapitulate, people living in metro cities feel comfortable travelling to their work when they rent or buy a house nearby, but they are also in jeopardy of destroying their natural habitat. Though both have their own significance and in my point of view living in the downtown areas saves ample time in this busy life.

IELTS Essay on City Development

It is a topic of debate for a while as a set of people put forward the idea of replacing the open areas with high-rise residential buildings to cut the travel time of city commuters, while others oppose this idea. I too firmly withstand the latter viewpoint. The aim of this essay is to discuss both the point of views in details before reaching a reasoned conclusion.

The proponents of erecting apartment and flats, and replacing parks and gardens consider that it would help to ease the life of commuters. The fact is that millions get on to the roads on daily bases to reach their workplaces, and an average dweller of mega cities waste 1 to 2 hours commuting to and from work. It is not just a waste of time that can be utilized in a more productive manner but also the discharge of toxic fumes from vehicle is polluting the air which is posing a serious threat to the health of inhabitants. As per an official report, skyscraper constructed at a plot of an average sized park can accommodate 1000 families which can result in a substantial cut in the amount of time invested along with traffic and pollution.

However, the opponents believe this approach would engender numerous problems, hence, should be managed differently. Needless to say, midtowns are full of hustle and bustle where people come for enjoyment too. For instance, shopping malls, clubs, pubs, casinos here attract millions which means people living around would always be disturbed with the noises around. In addition, parks and gardens are not only health-giving to the visitors but also offer a platform to socially interact with others and appreciate the natural beauty.

After analysing both views, I have reached to the conclusion, urgent steps need to be taken to reduce the travel time in mega cities but it should not be compromised with nature. In fact, work from home, rapid transit system and other options are more viable in order to facilitate travellers.

Also Check: Criminals Commit Crimes after Jail IELTS Essay