A lot of money is spent on renovating old buildings. We should knock them down and build modern ones instead. To what extent to you agree or disagree with these statements

Replacing a structure is a process that requires careful analysis. In architecture, constructions often carry historic or artistic value,

therefore

there are

cases

in which demolition is off-limits. In other

cases

Add a comma

,cases

show examples

the costs of restoration are lower than those of reconstruction.

Therefore

the earlier alternative is preferable. In certain locations, buildings are part of the character of the place.

For example

, Paris would not be the same without its Art-Deco palaces and Avant-Gurd houses. In

this

case, getting rid of all the vintage structures and knocking them down to make space for brand-new modern structures is unthinkable and would ruin the aesthetics of the French capital. In some

cases

, when the economic aspect is key, constructing from zero is way more expensive than re-adapting certain facilities.

This

procedure can be seen in Brooklyn, NY where several factories have been transformed into apartments, giving a new life to several squares on a budget. That said, in some

cases

Add a comma

,cases

show examples

it is indeed cheaper to get rid of old structures and build new ones since the costs of renovating would exceed those of building from scratch -

This

option should only be considered if there is no artistic value- . Examples of

this

are

for example

when constant costly interventions are required, or when the

overall

condition of the facility is terrible and nothing is worth saving.

To conclude

I believe that there is no general rule that can be followed and that each case requires a precise analysis, in order to take the best decision both regarding the cultural value and the economic one.