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 Parkland for residential development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Here is a band 6.5 essay on this topic written by one of our students. The teacher’s comments in red are also given. Need help with IELTS writing? Get your essays, letters and reports corrected by me. A band 9 sample is also given below.
Analysis
Write at least 250 words. Otherwise, you will lose marks. You wrote only about 220 words. Why should parks be conserved? The main reason is their role in alleviating urban pollution. Parks offer the much needed oxygen. The trees in the parks absorb the carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles and factories and thus help to purify the air. You did not mention this point at all. As for solutions, the ones you mentioned are indeed feasible. Another solution is to encourage industries to move to suburbs. This will encourage people to move too. Thus, cities will become less crowded.
This seems band 6.5 to me.
Band 9 essay sample
One of the main problems that urban residents face is the lack of adequate housing options. Cities are highly crowded and as such there is not enough land for building new homes. Consequently, many people have to live in highly cramped spaces in unhygienic surroundings. Some urban planners opine that this problem can be tackled by replacing parkland by residential spaces. I fully disagree with this view.
Parks are a lot more than recreational spaces. They make cities more livable by improving air quality. Air pollution is a major problem in most cities. Trees help to purify the air by absorbing carbon dioxide. Thus they keep the temperatures low. Trees also release the much needed oxygen. Needless to say, parks are often called the lungs of cities. If they are replaced by residential structures, the quality of urban life will further deteriorate. In addition to improving air quality, parks make a convenient place for urbanites to meet and interact with one another. They also play a major role in helping people lead a physically active lifestyle.
A better solution to the housing crisis in urban areas is to encourage the construction of tall residential buildings. By going vertical, we can build more homes in less space. Many cities have already adopted this measure and thus managed to preserve a lot of open spaces for their residents. Another solution is to demolish old buildings and construct new homes in their place. In many cities, we can find several centuries-old dilapidated small structures occupying prime real estate. Of course, they do have some historical value and many people may oppose the decision to demolish them. However, in my opinion, providing housing to the masses is more important than conserving some old buildings that serve no real purpose. The government should also encourage industries to move to the suburbs. When jobs are available in the peripheral areas of the cities, few people will want to live or work in the city centre. Thus, the demand for housing will also subside.
In short, building homes on parkland is never the right solution to housing shortage in urban areas. Instead of destroying the green spaces by building homes there, municipal authorities should explore other options such as going vertical.
