Opinion — Planting trees in urban open spaces versus building more housing

Land in a crowded city can only be used once, so a vacant plot often becomes a battleground between a park and a block of flats. I partly agree with the statement: shelter is the more basic human need, yet the few open spaces that remain are precisely the land that should not be sacrificed to it.

Open ground in a city does work that buildings cannot. Trees shade streets and cool the air, which matters in places like Ho Chi Minh City, where concrete and traffic create an urban heat island; they also filter dust and absorb stormwater that would otherwise flood the roads. A small park gives flat-dwellers somewhere to walk, exercise and let children play, benefits felt most by families without a garden. Crucially, such space is all but irreplaceable. Once a square has been built over, it is almost never recovered, since no government can afford to buy the land back.

None of this makes trees more important than homes in general. An acute housing shortage pushes rents beyond the reach of young workers, forcing them into overcrowded rooms or long commutes from distant suburbs, and those commutes generate the very pollution trees are expected to absorb. A family without secure accommodation gains little from a leafy view. The real question is therefore where housing should go, and the answer is rarely the last patch of grass. Cities can build upwards, convert empty offices and redevelop brownfield sites such as disused factories and car parks. Singapore houses most of its people in high-rise estates while remaining one of the greenest cities in Asia.

In sum, I do not accept that planting trees matters more than housing people, but I do agree that open spaces should be reserved for greenery. A well-planned city builds at higher density on land already developed and protects its parks, so that neither need is met at the expense of the other.