Some people believe that to reduce the amount of time,People spend cummuting (travellers to work), parks and gardens close to the city centres should be replaced by apartment buildings for commuters to live in. However, Others disagree with this. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 A few individuals trust that to lower the amount of flow, Touristers spend travel to and fro, Government places close to the city centres should be replaced by tourister's houses for commuters to live in. I shall discuss both views in the upcoming paragraph.

To commence with, There are ample of reasons for this given notion. The most prominent one is that, reduce pollution and accidental cases are very rare. To Simplify, If the parks and gardens removed and constructed buildings for touristers. Thus, the people live in these apartments and the moment of vehicles slow down. Significantly, Pollution also reduces and the rare chance of accidents. For instance, In Chandigarh, Government built many apartments and houses for individuals to live in and the pollution in this city is low. Moreover, People follow proper rules and regulations.

On the other hand, The other reason is that if the parks and gardens close to the cities. Therefore, The older people do not take proper exercise everyday. Moreover, Chidren also do not walk and exercise in the evening. To Justify, Most of citizens in the cities unhealthy and remain unfit. If the parks and gardens are closing down. Furthermore, Children do not play some outdoor activities such as cricket and football due to close down the gardens. To exemplify, In China, People do not healthy and fit because they do not play outdoor activities and games. Significanty, Chinese government replaces so many empty places and construct buildings in these empty places.

To conclude that, According to my prespective governmnet do not replace parks and gardens in cities and construct buildings for touristers in empty spaces around the cities without damaging any environment.