Hours of traveling to work are such a huge problem to those who live far from the city center - in which quite a few companies and corporations are situated. Therefore, many suggest that enormous central land occupied by open-air spaces, like parks and gardens, should be used for housing instead. There are arguments drawn by the opposite side, but I believe this idea would be the best way to tackle the issue due to the advantages of time and traffic.
The short distance between houses and their companies saves workers a great amount of time. Less time spent commuting means more time used to fulfill other tasks, which enhances one’s productivity. A daily long trip to work can hinder anyone from doing their utmost since it drains plenty of their energy. Also, possible consequences derived from lengthy transport such as tiredness, or frustration will be eliminated because more people will inhabit near their workplace. Another problem possibly solved thanks to the replacement is congestion. Automotive vehicles would reduce in number as when many live in close distance, walking could be more preferable. Thus, traffic jams could be eased and so could stress.
However, hardly can apartment buildings bring the great impacts that parks and gardens can do, in terms of air quality and recreation. Trees, the Earth’s “green lungs” that filter pollutants in the air, create better air quality which directly boosts residents’ respiratory health. Furthermore, workers can stroll around public parks or botanical gardens after stressful working hours for entertainment.
To conclude, apartment buildings’ benefits outweigh those of public green spaces when it comes to their central position in cities. Productivity and smooth traffic could be accelerated if we construct more accommodations close to the center. Air quality can also be improved thanks to the decline of congestion, and many other sources of recreation like shopping malls or cinemas can meet the daily needs of most people.
Hours of traveling to work are such a huge problem to those who
live
far from the city center
-
in which quite a few
companies
and corporations
are situated
.
Therefore
,
many
suggest that enormous central land occupied by open-air spaces, like parks and gardens, should be
used
for housing
instead
. There are arguments drawn by the opposite side,
but
I believe this
idea
would be the best way to tackle the issue due to the advantages of
time
and traffic.
The short distance between
houses
and their
companies
saves workers a great amount of
time
. Less
time
spent commuting means more
time
used
to fulfill other tasks, which enhances one’s productivity. A daily long trip to work can hinder anyone from doing their utmost since it drains
plenty
of their energy.
Also
, possible consequences derived from lengthy transport such as tiredness, or frustration will
be eliminated
because
more
people
will inhabit near their workplace. Another problem
possibly
solved thanks to the replacement is congestion. Automotive vehicles would
reduce
in number as when
many
live
in close distance, walking could be more preferable.
Thus
, traffic jams could be
eased
and
so
could
stress
.
However
, hardly can apartment buildings bring the great impacts that parks and gardens can do, in terms of
air
quality and recreation. Trees, the Earth’s “green lungs” that filter pollutants in the
air
, create better
air
quality which
directly
boosts residents’ respiratory health.
Furthermore
, workers can stroll around public parks or botanical gardens after stressful working hours for entertainment.
To conclude
, apartment buildings’ benefits outweigh those of public green spaces when it
comes
to their central position in cities. Productivity and smooth traffic could
be accelerated
if we construct more accommodations close to the center.
Air
quality can
also
be
improved
thanks to the decline of congestion, and
many
other sources of recreation like shopping malls or cinemas can
meet
the daily needs of most
people
.