Working in a fixed location often comes with the problem of lengthy commuting or the need to move house. In fact, it is not easy for many people to rent an ideal house close to their workplace because there are limited vacancies in their desired apartment blocks. To avoid spending a long-time commuting, some people consider that we should remove parks and gardens in order to build more apartments in cities, however, I disagree with this idea. I believe that an attractive environment is more important than convenience. (This introduction is too long) Parks and gardens are built as a fundamental need in cities worldwide. They are not just for leisure purposes, instead, they benefit us both physically and mentally. For example, both taking a walk in a park and gazing into the garden can make us more healthy and feel relaxed away from our work and life. It is obvious that not only do cities need them to improve their image both environmentally and in a civilised (?) way, but also we human beings rely on them in terms of health (this repeats what you said in the previous sentence). In my opinion, employees should decide on their workplaces themselves, which would mean their commuting distance is acceptable from the outset. Besides, people should make their own judgment on the benefits and the drawbacks when choosing a job. And if they eventually find out that they are suffering from travelling to work, maybe they need to consider finding a new job. To sum up, the idea of replacing parks and gardens in the city with apartment buildings for commuters lacks thought, and therefore I disagree with it. (266 words)

Working in a fixed location often comes with problems of long-time commuting or home replacing. In fact, it is not easy for many people to rent an ideal house close to their workplace, for there are limited vacancies in their desired apartments. To avoid long (lenghty) commutes, some people think we should remove parks and gardens in order to build more needed apartments in the city, which I disagree with it. I believe that the approachable (?) environment is more important than certain people's convenience. Parks and gardens are built as a fundamental need in cities worldwide. They are not just for leisure purposes, such as entertainment, instead, they benefit us physically and mentally. For example, both taking a walk in a park and gazing into the garden can make us more healthy and feel relaxed from our work and life. It is obvious that not only our city needs them to improve its image in an environmental and civilized way, but also we human beings rely on them in terms of health. In my opinion, employees decide their workplace themselves, which means the distance from their house is willingly acceptable at the beginning. Besides, people should have their own judgment on the merits and the demerits when coming to a job chosen. And if they eventually find out that they are suffering from travelling to work, maybe they need to reconsider a new option for their job. To sum up, the intention of replacing parks and gardens in the city with apartments buildings for commuters lacks of necessary consideration. Therefore, I disagree with it. (266 words)