Governments spend an enormous amount of money on renovations of old buildings in large cities. Some believe that this money can be better spent on building new houses and developing roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement?

Governments are sometimes careless with public money. Renovations of old buildings are examples where exceeding sums are spent, whereas more investments are necessary for new infrastructures, like housing and transportation. For that matter, I believe that authorities ought to distribute resources cautiously, prioritizing building new houses and developing roads. Renovating new buildings is probably a good step toward mitigating gentrification.

For example

, adapting business facilities no longer used due to increased remote working could help alleviate the housing crisis in metropolitan areas.

This

way, rental units would be offered to low-income citizens, which would

also

reduce commuting time, and

hence

decrease the deterioration of

city

streets caused by high-volume traffic.

Moreover

, some facilities could

also

be adapted to house homeless people who need specialized mental health care.

However

, funds are limited,

thus

a diligent use of public money is imperative.

For instance

, an enormous amount should not be spent on renovations. More funds are needed for suburbs and small towns where urbanization is still ongoing.

This

could have a great impact on society since more people would have access to fair prices for buying their homes.

Furthermore

, if improved roads were developed, there would be easier integration between

city

centres and surrounding towns.

Finally

, desmotropolization is a sound solution to crowding, decreasing the risks of a new pandemic. In conclusion, I agree that renovations of old buildings are a way of dealing with gentrification in

city

centres, but there is too much money invested in it, while more should be spent on housing outside

city

boundaries and with roads to integrate all areas.