You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people think that the best way to reduce time spent in traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
REPORTED ON 19 MARCH, 2022 (MORNING SESSION)
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.