Some people think that planting trees in open space in cities and towns is more important than building houses. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
more flora in urban areas
My timed (40 min) answer (264 words):
It appears that the public prefers to grow trees rather than residential buildings, in empty spots, in a city or a town, as it is considered of more significance. In my opinion, I agree that trees add greater value to cities and towns.
Firstly, cities and towns are bound to be packed with people and cars which leads to air pollution. Scattering trees around would be the easiest way to create cleaner and fresher air. Not only do they help clean the air, but trees are also a great method to enhance the natural beauty of a city or town. In other words, with cities and towns being over industrialised and urbanised, a glimpse of green spots here and there would never be condemned.
With respect to residential buildings, most cities and towns nowadays utilise apartments rather than houses. Thus, if the population is to expand, apartments may increase their number of floors to accommodate for more residents. This method is in fact less costly when compared building a housing area from scratch.
Another point to consider is the possibility of creating a park. If an empty area is large enough, a park can be created with a variety of trees planted. Such a new spot can produce an influx of visitors, moreover helping the economy of the given city or town.
In conclusion, I think that trees are of a greater value to a city or town when compared with residential buildings. Their presence adds an aesthetically appealing element while also aiding on a practical level with cleaner air and perhaps an improved economy as well.
ps. I would appreciate a rough band score. On another note, I thought my writing and overall ideas presented not on par with my usual writing. I think this was because I timed myself...Thank you in advance!