Some people think that government spending on the restoration of old buildings in cities should be stopped. Instead they should spend the money for housing and road development. To what extent do you agree?

The housing community is a very serious and complex topic that will have different approaches in all kinds of locations.

For example

, ingrown economies with high ,GDP it is common that people would have a better chance to have a place to live,

instead

, in emergent countries is much more difficult for the population to afford to live in good conditions because the minimum wage of the people is very low. The idea of restoration of old

buildings

is cool and must be done, but only if it is being done with a large study of the local community to analyse all the pros and cons and even the cost of opportunity of constructing houses for the homeless. In the central area of São Paulo is common to have old equity which is mostly cultural and tourist places, these

buildings

attract people to see them and

this

benefits the local economy of São Paulo.

This

cycle should allow the government to use these resources to provide the state with a better life quality

such

as building homeless new houses or road development.

Unfortunately

Add a comma

,Unfortunately

show examples

it is not what happens in most applied cases because the governments are not always clear about what they do with the taxes paid by the population so it is I would say that restoring

buildings

is part of a preservation system that allows

buildings

to stay longer operating and not getting obsoleted so fast. ,

Unfortunately

Add a comma

,Unfortunately

show examples

it is not what happens in most applied cases because the governments are not always clear about what they do with the taxes paid by the population so it is I would say that restoring

buildings

is part of a preservation system that allows

buildings

to stay longer operating and not getting obsoleted so fast.