A lot of money is spent on repairing old buildings. Instead of repairing old buildings that money should be spent on knocking down old buildings and build new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is not a secret that some constructions should be repaid repaired.

Thus

, a plethora of people

tends

Change the verb form

tend

show examples

to believe that government should put on money on the renovation of edifices

instead

of constructing a new one - while other individuals, as well as I,

on the contrary

, frown on

this

idea, taking the opposite point of view. Below I will explore

this

highly interesting and thought-provoking dilemma.

First

and foremost, I am convinced that updating earlier buildings are not so beneficial compared to placing ones new. To start with, the more time some construction exists, the riskier it is.

For instance

, in 2012 in the South of ,Moscow an edifice collapsed, hurting seriously lots of inhabitants, and fatal cases were not an exception.

Moreover

, it takes much more money and effort as

such

establishments require constant attention to be checked by professional workers, more frequent repair and sometimes, albeit not always, the greater amount of costs.

In addition

, if a house either was inconvenient or had few floors, it would be much better to place new,skyscrapers

for example

, in case of its necessity.

In particular

, in 2021 in the West of Moscow abandoned aged structures were demolished and updating one was placed, letting more than 300 citizens both buy and rent new flats. To sum up, despite the opposite opinion, I do believe that aged buildings should be torn down, giving the opportunity to place new edifices due to the reason I have mentioned earlier: the matter of safety and expanding square, to be precise.