The notion of transforming parks and gardens near city centers into apartment buildings to reduce commuting time is contentious. While some may argue that this approach could alleviate the time-intensive daily commutes many face, I firmly disagree with this proposal due to its potential negative impact on urban living and the environment.

Firstly, parks and gardens play an essential role in maintaining urban environmental health. They act as the lungs of a city, providing clean air and a natural habitat for wildlife. Replacing these green spaces with concrete structures would exacerbate pollution levels and reduce biodiversity, leading to long-term ecological damage. The benefits of reduced travel time must be weighed against the loss of these vital green areas, which contribute significantly to the quality of life in urban settings.

Moreover, parks and gardens offer residents a space for recreation and relaxation, promoting physical well-being and mental health. These areas are essential for fostering community interaction and providing a respite from the hustle and bustle of city life. Removing such spaces would deprive city dwellers of these benefits, potentially leading to increased stress and decreased overall well-being.

In addition, the assumption that building more apartments near city centers will significantly reduce commuting time is flawed. The increased population density could lead to overcrowding, putting additional pressure on already strained infrastructure and public services. Furthermore, without addressing the root causes of long commutes, such as inadequate public transportation systems, this solution may not yield the desired results.

In conclusion, while the idea of reducing commuting time is appealing, repurposing parks and gardens for apartment buildings is not a sustainable or beneficial solution. Instead, enhancing public transport and encouraging remote working could be more effective strategies, preserving both the environment and the quality of urban life.