The topic of urban development and its impact on living spaces has been a recurring theme in IELTS Writing Task 2. Based on recent exam patterns, questions about replacing parks with residential buildings appear approximately once every 4-5 months, making it a highly relevant topic for IELTS candidates.
Urban development showing contrast between parks and apartment buildings
Analysis of Recent Exam Topic
Some people believe that building more housing in city parks will reduce commute times and benefit city life. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Topic Analysis
- Type: Opinion essay (Agree/Disagree)
- Key elements:
- Housing development in parks
- Impact on commute times
- Overall effects on city life
- Required approach: Clear position with supporting arguments
Band 8.5 Sample Essay
The proposition of converting urban parks into residential spaces to decrease travel time has sparked considerable debate. While this approach might offer some short-term benefits, I strongly disagree with this solution as it would ultimately deteriorate the quality of urban life.
Admittedly, building apartments in park areas could initially reduce commuting times. By creating housing closer to business districts, workers would spend less time traveling between their homes and workplaces, potentially increasing productivity and work-life balance. Additionally, this approach might temporarily alleviate housing shortages in metropolitan areas.
However, the drawbacks of such development significantly outweigh these benefits. Firstly, urban parks serve as crucial “green lungs” for cities, filtering air pollutants and reducing the urban heat island effect. Their removal would exacerbate environmental problems, potentially leading to increased respiratory issues among residents. Moreover, parks provide essential recreational spaces where people can exercise, relax, and socialize, contributing to both physical and mental well-being.
Furthermore, the destruction of parks would have far-reaching consequences for urban ecosystems. These green spaces support local biodiversity, provide habitats for wildlife, and help maintain ecological balance in cities. Their replacement with concrete structures would disrupt these natural systems irreversibly. Additionally, parks enhance property values and contribute to the aesthetic appeal of cities, making them more attractive to residents and tourists alike.
In conclusion, while reducing commute times is a valid concern, sacrificing urban parks for housing development would create more problems than it solves. Instead, cities should focus on sustainable solutions such as improving public transportation infrastructure and implementing smart urban planning strategies that preserve green spaces while addressing housing needs.
Band 6.5 Sample Essay
Some people think that building houses in city parks will help reduce travel time for workers. However, I disagree with this idea because parks are very important for cities.
One reason why some support this idea is that it can make traveling easier. When people live closer to their offices, they don’t need to spend much time on buses or trains. This means they can have more time for family and other activities. Also, new apartments in central areas can help solve housing problems in big cities.
However, I think removing parks is not a good solution. First, parks help make the air cleaner in cities. Trees and plants can reduce pollution from cars and factories. Without parks, cities would become more polluted and unhealthy. Also, parks are important places where people can exercise and relax after work. Many people use parks for walking, running, or just sitting quietly.
Another problem is that building more houses will create other issues. More buildings mean more traffic on roads, which can actually make travel times longer. Also, when we remove parks, animals and birds lose their homes, which is bad for the environment. Parks also make cities look nice and help people feel less stressed.
In conclusion, while building houses in parks might help with travel time, it would cause many other problems. I think cities should find better ways to solve transportation issues without destroying green spaces.
Essay Analysis and Band Score Justification
Band 8.5 Essay Features:
- Sophisticated vocabulary and complex structures
- Clear organization with cohesive devices
- Well-developed arguments with specific examples
- Precise language use and academic tone
Band 6.5 Essay Features:
- Basic but clear arguments
- Simple but accurate language
- Limited range of complex structures
- Some repetition in vocabulary
- Adequate organization but less sophisticated
Key Vocabulary
- urban heat island effect (n.) /ˈɜːbən hiːt ˈaɪlənd ɪˈfekt/ – phenomenon where cities experience higher temperatures than surrounding areas
- exacerbate (v.) /ɪɡˈzæsəbeɪt/ – make worse
- biodiversity (n.) /ˌbaɪəʊdaɪˈvɜːsəti/ – variety of plant and animal life
- irreversibly (adv.) /ˌɪrɪˈvɜːsəbli/ – in a way that cannot be changed back
- sustainable (adj.) /səˈsteɪnəbl/ – able to continue over time without damaging the environment
Conclusion
This topic reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing urban development with environmental preservation. For practice, consider writing about these related topics:
- Converting industrial areas into residential zones
- Building underground parks to save space
- Creating vertical gardens on apartment buildings
Share your practice essays in the comments for feedback and discussion with other learners.
