真题：Many cities are replacing farmlands and parks with houses. Is it positive or negative?

背景阐述

Never before in history has urbanization been accelerated to a scale like now. As world population increased four-fold in the last century, people’s conflict with the already-scarce usable land is skyrocketing. In many cities, farmlands and parks are being replaced with houses or high rising residential areas.

Negative 版本

I am, however, disappointed with the pattern of the so-called development.

The most devastating impact could be food safety. Farmland could have been the most precious land for the survival of human. This is why many countries around the world would describe occupying farmlands, on their criminal laws, as a felony. So the situation is quite clear: either those property developers are illegally stealing from local residents the farmland they depend on, or these real estate oligarchies are trampling over law and order. No one would applaud for this kind of destruction. More importantly, these businesspersons, blinded by greed, shall be punished.

Another concern would be the loss for local residents. For some citizens, the park could be a place to relax; while to others, a place full of memories. The enclosure of a park would only guarantee the owner of the new estate have access to their private garden. But when outsiders make an attempt to visit their beloved park occasionally, they might be kept away since “this is, from now on, private property”. It is hard for people not to despise what these realtors has done to their cities.

Some would say that everyone has his/her own right to pursue happiness. However, we should never forget that the selfish happiness has to abide by the law and local people’s will. There are already lands for estate construction, they should really think twice before they savagely destroy the precious yet disappearing lands.

No one want to live under a bridge for sure. Yet before we make those short-sighted decisions, we might have to ask ourselves: are these zealous development in the price of land waste really worth it?

Positive 版本

My contention is that this is a painful yet necessary move for those cities.

In most developing countries, the number one priority for the increasing urban population is a shelter. Some low yield farmlands and seldom-visited park might be crossed out from preservation list and restored for residential purpose. The only goal is to be able to accommodate the surging population thanks to the development of megacities. The function of these parks and farmlands would normally be inherited by the similar sites at the suburbs or nearby districts. As long as the planner take care of the time line properly, citizens are most likely to understand and accept these decisions.

Rational planning would also grant urban residents a better life. As small parks and farmlands are removed in the urban area, traffic flow would be centralized to the remaining major sits like central park or CBD. Thanks to modern agriculture and transportation system, fresh produce could be grown at suburban areas and sent to groceries swiftly. Those who have lost their farmlands could either move to the suburb to raise crops or live in the newly built house.

I have to admit that the process of development is painful since there would be people losing their beloved lands or parks. However, we cannot make omelets without breaking a few eggs. The decision would be accompanied by a series of compensating changes over urban planning. We should have faith in those planners.

Like we said, we are going through a conflict between mankind and the nature. If only we could trust the advance in technology, we shall, one day, turn back and try to fix the earlier damage we made because of our urgent need to survive.

端水达人版（往日重现）

However, there is no gainsaying the fact that the so-called development is beset by severer problems than ever before, which can hardly be offset by its seemingly positive advantages.

Admittedly, it is fortunate that an increasing number of people of the current century could enjoy a stable accommodation or to say a more comfortable life. Megacities provide an abundance of plots for people working in the city to choose where to exchange their decade-or-even-life-long savings for a dream estate. Naturally, what used to be parks could be idea places since the communities built on these lands come naturally with a great landscape. After all, no one would reject the temptation of “Not only a house, but also a free park in your community” slogan whilst buying a house.

Nonetheless, environmentalists would most likely to curse those real estate oligarchies for devastating the already vulnerable eco-system; residents in the cities might also unleash their anger to these businessmen blinded by greed since they destroyed many people’s memory for the city. Many Hollywood film would depict a story that evil real estate company outed by kind local citizens; yet in the real world, evil often triumphs. Though at some point the government would intervene, like what Chinese government has done to the house built around Qinling mounting, we cannot guarantee that all these devastating constructions could be curbed.

In conclusion, although the 21st century has indeed given us hosts of modern comforts, we should not be lulled into a false sense of sheer gratification but must take immediate measures to conserve the ecosystem, or we may have the dubious honour of being the last, only species living on the planet.