Restoration of old building in main cities involves enormous government expenditure. It would be more beneficial to spend this money to build new houses and roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Answer
Nowadays, the pressing need to provide shelter for the community is a mainstream issue being addressed by the government. However, the capital invested into construction renovation is huge compared with the cost of original housing development. I couldn’t have agreed more that this amount should rather be used for modern expansion alongside transportation routes. Analyzing the need for urbanization and the effect of construction retrofitting will justify it.
Firstly, more than half of the society’s population lacks a home in developing countries thereby encouraging human habitation in slums, where they have always been exposed to environmental disasters such as floods, outbreaks of diseases, and insecurities. For instance, urban cities across the world have been experiencing congestion due to overcrowding. Hence, erecting lodges in areas that are yet to be developed will be more advantageous to society.
Secondly, of course the approach of retrofitting as an alternative to building construction may be cheaper, particularly in the case of smaller projects. Yet, the risk attached to the processes involved could incur more costs. For example, the demolition of structural elements of the existing buildings, if not handled by experts could lead to vehement loss and even death, contrary to the budget. Thus restructuring of housing should best be considered as the last result of expanding housing.
In a nutshell, the government’s record of a large amount for developing readymade houses as against contemporary homes and access roads, calls for the need to consider the option of investment with respect to project size and expertise.
251 words
Overall Band Score : 90
