"The restoration of old buildings in major cities around the world costs governments billions of dollars while this money should have been used for new housing and road development." To what extent do you agree or disagree to this statement?

In many major cities doing up old

buildings

costs administrations enormous amounts of money while these sums could have been used for the construction of modern apartment

buildings

and roads. I agree with

this

statement as these expenditures are likely to be inefficient.

Firstly

, the progress in architecture and engineering has not been staying in one place. It means that there are many new materials and technologies which can be used to construct more reliable and durable

buildings

and roads.

Moreover

, with the worsening global environment, people need housing that can withstand unpredictable weather patterns. A prime example would be Japan. Not only its' constructions are tall and futuristic, but they are

also

solid and resilient to earthquakes.

Secondly

, the space occupied by old

buildings

could have been used more efficiently. Some new parks, schools, hospitals or any other socially-oriented

buildings

could have been built

instead

.

For instance

, in our area, there is a lack of primary schools and kindergartens forcing parents and their children to drive to another part of the city. Were the government to build new schools, people would not have to spend too much of their time.

Also

,

this

would solve the issue with traffic jams. In conclusion, I am absolutely convinced that spending money on the restoration of old

buildings

is a waste of time and resources as these expenditures are not cost-effective. I would recommend that governments focused on building new housing and roads as it would have positive results in a long run.