Some people believe that the restoration of old buildings costs too much; we should demolish them and build new ones instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is commonly believed that old buildings ought to be reconstructed rather than renovated since as
it (1) renovation is expensive. I partially agree with this statement as the decision should be based on the condition of the premises and the value it holds for the culture of a country.
1. ‘IT’ does not refer to anything. It is a pronoun and a pronoun refers to a noun. But, ‘renovated’ is a verb. Renovation is a noun. Grammar mistake.
Although demolishing and rebuilding old premises ensure
its (whose quality? Old premises? But, once demolished, it does not exist.) a structure’s stability quality, it results in losing the historical value of a place. There are many buildings, such as the Taj Mahal, Red Fort, and Notre dam Church, around the globe that are heritage and hold a cultural value for a country. Since these buildings they were constructed centuries ago, they depict the history of a region of its own. Taj Mahal, for instance, was built in the year 1632 by Shah Jahan , (unnecessary punctuation.) in the memory of his wife. He not only designed it himself but also used a unique stone that is no more available in the market. Many tourists come to India to visit this historical place, and hence, restoration is the only process to preserve such places, no matter how expensive it is. (and, hence, restoration is the only way to preserve such places irrespective of the cost.)
Furthermore, some old buildings do not impose (buildings can’t impose anything.) any safety issues (Moreover, many old buildings have a safe structure ….) (Moreover, there are no safety concerns regarding many old buildings …..) because of the good quality of raw material used
while during their initial construction. Demolishing and reconstructing them for the sake of a new design will cost not only a huge (significant/ massive/ tremendous) amount of money but also more a lot of time as compared to its renovation. (You can also use two verbs instead of only one – cost. …… new design will not only cost …. but also consume ….) This is because labourers charge for destroying a building, (This is because demolition teams charge a lot of money, ….) whereas , restoration does not involve this charge. But, if a building is too old and people residents (occupants) have to compromise with their safety, (2) then (3) it should be rebuilt because repairing will cost as much as reconstructing it will, and safety should be the utmost priority.
2. They are not compromising their safety deliberately. Right? We don’t know who is compromising their safety. The subject is unknown. This is the perfect place to write in passive voice. But, of a building is too old and the safety of its occupants is compromised, …..
3. In “IF-THEN” construction, there is no need to write THEN. Just write: If X, Y.
To conclude, I believe that the safety of people and the history of old buildings should be taken into consideration before deciding whether they require renovation or reconstruction