Before: a paragraph from a typical essayCity parks matter to every city. They clean the air and give people a place to relax. You can walk, exercise, or meet friends in a park. Parks also make a city more attractive to residents and visitors. That's why city governments should take care of parks and build new ones. Without parks, a city becomes an uncomfortable place to live, and people have nowhere to rest from the noise.
After: the same thesis, built outCity parks aren't decoration — they're part of a city's infrastructure, and quality of life depends on them. By a park, I mean green public land open to every resident, not a private garden or a courtyard attached to one building. A park's main function isn't aesthetic but environmental: trees and open space soften summer heat in dense areas and provide daily rest without having to leave the city. Take a neighborhood where a large park sits next to residential blocks: it functions differently — people run there in the morning, parents and older residents walk there in the afternoon, neighbors gather in the evening, and the park becomes the neighborhood's shared living room. Residents of that kind of neighborhood spend their free time near home instead of commuting to find it. One could object that a park takes up expensive city land that could hold housing or retail instead. However, that objection misses the long-term cost: a neighborhood without green space loses its appeal, and residents end up spending time traveling to find rest elsewhere. The practical conclusion follows: maintaining parks isn't a city government's charity, it's an investment in a neighborhood's livability that pays back in residents' health and their desire to live there in the first place. That's why a park deserves a place in city planning alongside roads and schools, not an afterthought.