Band 8 model answer

Cities around the world are under pressure to house rapidly growing populations, yet at the same time there is a compelling case for protecting and expanding parks and green spaces. I agree that urban greenery should be prioritised, even at some cost to housing supply.

The benefits of green spaces extend far beyond aesthetics. Parks and tree-lined streets measurably improve air quality, reduce the urban heat-island effect, and manage stormwater flooding, environmental functions that become more critical as climate change intensifies. More fundamentally, accessible green space has a well-established positive impact on mental and physical health: cities such as Singapore and Copenhagen have deliberately invested in parks and cycling infrastructure and consistently rank among the most liveable in the world. Denying residents these benefits in the name of density can create environments that are technically housed but genuinely unpleasant to inhabit.

Opponents argue that when housing is scarce and unaffordable, parks are a luxury cities cannot afford. This concern deserves respect: chronic housing shortages drive up rents and push lower-income residents to distant suburbs, which is itself a serious social harm. Nevertheless, the trade-off is a false binary. Well-designed mixed-use precincts can increase residential density while retaining communal gardens, green roofs and pocket parks. Tokyo and Amsterdam both achieve high density without sacrificing greenery by building upwards and designing shared outdoor spaces at every scale.

The real issue is poor planning rather than an inherent conflict between housing and nature. Cities that build dense, well-connected residential areas around existing parks can meet both goals simultaneously.

In conclusion, I firmly agree that cities should protect green spaces, because a city that sacrifices all its nature for housing creates a built environment that undermines the very quality of life it is meant to support.