Trees play a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance. Even though many people think that empty places should be used for building to solve housing-related problems, I side with those who believe that these places are intended for planting trees to reduce environmental pollution.

Proponents of urban development argue that building new houses or infrastructure in the vacant areas can help to alleviate the housing shortage. 

Others say that planting trees in unused areas brings significant benefits by mitigating pollution, and I agree with this.

Nowadays, some people believe that every free space in the city should be planted with trees, whilst others argue, the vacant space should be used for building. Reducing space for building by planting trees creates the housing problem, however, trees in cities provide the space for recreation for improving mental and physical health and I side with the former point of view.

Reducing space for building creates the shortage of living spaces, therefore, for people it is becoming difficult to find a place for living in cities.

Creating areas with trees provides the recreational space, which could be used by locals for mental relaxation and for doing physical activities.

Trees have a part to play in an every ecosystem. While some maintain that vacant lots have to have trees planted on them, others believe that more houses will be of greater use. Even though housing is essential especially in this age of ever increasing population, I side with former one thinking that it is trees that should fill spare urban spaces as it alleviates pollution. 

Some claim that vacant areas in cities and town should be taken up by housing to accommodate more people. 

Others, I side with, hold the view that it is better that trees should be planted in spare spaces of urban environments since these plants fight pollution. 

Nowadays there are two opposing opinions on what should be done with free city spaces. While some believe that these free spaces should be occupied with trees, others consider that it should be taken up by new housing facilities. I support the idea of filling free city spaces with vegetation.
Some believe that towns and cities need to build more housing facilities in free city spaces because a lot of cities and towns are now densely populated and more and more are moving to cities, thus a lot of people need places to live.

Others consider that green areas are highly important in cities and towns and I side with this opinion because green areas in cities and towns not only create recreational zones for people, but also act as stress relievers and reduce people’s anxiety.

Landscaping enhances habitats. Even though some people believe that all vacant urban spaces should be planted with trees or greenery, while others advocate for developing more residential areas. I agree with aspects of both perspectives.

As construction expands housing areas, fewer people need to live in cramped conditions, at the same time this also increases the strain on public services such as waste collection.

Parks and green spaces can promote biodiversity by providing habitats for small wild animals and birds, however, maintaining parks can be costly, including expenses for plant care and facilities.

Some people say that free areas of the cities should be used for urban forestry for improving ecology. Others believe that it is better to extend accommodation facilities by building new houses to decrease house prices. I partly agree with both points of view and think that the optimal decision is constructing vertical green neighbourhood communities that will address both of these problems.

Building parks in the vacant city’s lands might help improve air quality in the city, but the usual park took too much space, as eco-neighbourhoods are compact and eco-friendly.

Even though building new accommodation might lower the house price, it damages the city ecology, while green skyscrapers help with the accommodation problem without drawbacks.