Nothing  in  the  article  or  in  anything  I've  heard  talks  about  doing  away  with  public  green  spaces,  ie  parks.

What  the  primary  argument  is  is  that  agricultural  land  around  many  cities  has  a  higher  value  as  residential  land  than  it  has  for  agriculture.

The  main  counter  arguments  appear  to  be  that  we  need  the  land  to  grow  food,  which  is  debatable,  or  that  spread  out  cities  are  too  expensive  to  build  and  maintain.  The  latter  argument  appears  to  be  that  development  fees  are  too  low  which  can  be  changed  without  otherwise  restricting  development.

It  is  ironic  that  a  country  with   one  of  lowest  population  densities  in  the  world  claims  there  is  insufficient  land  available  to  allow  people  to  build  the  types  of  homes  that  they  seem  to  want.