Too much money is spent on repairing old buildings instead of constructing new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is currently a contentious argument over whether rundown constructions should be repaired or if it should be spent money by constructing new ones. In

this

essay, I will examine why I believe that old buildings should be maintained as regards to its history and more convenient to the owners considering their price. The main reason that old building should be refurbished is that it can be preserved in its historical context. Every city has important buildings that represent an important memory from the past which means that important facts came about in that local.

For instance

, the White House is considered an old building and thousands of dollars are spent every year in order to maintain its preservation.

As a result

, it does not matter how much it costs a refurbish considering that some specific buildings represent to society. Another reason why I support the notion that refurbishes is a better choice is because it is reasonably cheaper. Nowadays, it is known that any space available especially in the great metropolis has a high cost that sometimes is configured as a hurdle when it comes to new constructions.

Thus

, to refurbish is always a better option as it is not necessary to get construction licenses from officials departments as it has already been built. To illustrate, in the past, most of the constructions were considered large while in the contemporary real state market, a smaller one can cost at least the double. In conclusion, I support the idea that refurbishing an old building is more convenient as it is far cheaper than constructing a new one from the sketch.

Also

, it is important to maintain some constructions that somehow play an important role in regarding the past os the society so

this

kind of memory should not be replaced by modern sites.