302 words by a whitespace count. This teaching example has an AI-estimated band, not an official examiner score. Read the commentary, then attempt the question yourself.
“Some argue that cities need more parks and green spaces, even if that means less housing. Do you agree or disa…”Model answer
302 wordsP1Cities 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.
P2The 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.
P3Opponents 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.
Write your answer in the exam workspace and see how your four marks compare to the model’s.
P4Better planning can often reduce the conflict between housing and nature. Where scarce land creates a genuine trade-off, however, I would protect a minimum of accessible green space even if this means foregoing some housing capacity, while seeking additional homes through density and reuse elsewhere.
P5In conclusion, I firmly agree that cities should protect green spaces, because essential green space supports a quality of life that can justify foregoing some housing where the two goals genuinely compete.