Too much money is spent repairing old buildings. It would be better if this money was used to knock down old building and construct new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In recent years, building reconstructions are widespread in old urban areas. There are multiple reasons for these renewals including enhancement in cities appearance, strengthening outmoded buildings and improvement in the efficiency of residents. Whereas, some people consider these activities impractical and

therefore

they believe that it is better to demolish buildings completely and re-build new ones. I personally disagree with them and in the

following

Add a comma

,following

show examples

I will explain it.

Firstly

, destroying an old structure requires more time and energy. A new design

that is

fitting to the previous land should be sketched.

In addition

, more workers are hired, which contributes to higher expenses.

Besides

, costs for

this

procedure are more than two times compare to repairing, since for eradication a previous building is knocked down and

then

a modern one would be erected in its place.

Moreover

, building elimination causes a lot of trash, which they are sometimes gigantic and difficult to handle. During construction, a lot of noise would be released and

therefore

neighbours would be uncomfortable.

Secondly

, modern structures might be inconsistent with the environment around them.

Hence

, the appearance of cities would become disproportion

as a result

of reckless re-constructions. In

this

case, the ugly urban areas would influence their citizens, which are seeing these disparities every day. Due to unpleasant feelings, they are dissatisfied with their legislators who allow imprudent actions that make the look of their region irritating. To summarize, I think repairing is more efficient than re-building in terms of price and energy. As well as that, each environment should be commensurate in order to induce sanguine feelings including satisfaction with habitat.