Prompt: Too much money is spent in maintaining and repairing old buildings, some people think they should be knocked down and give way to modern building. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Maintenance and reparation of old buildings have been an issue that governments have allocated a budget to it. While there is an argument that these buildings should be replaced by modern ones, I believe that it is a two-sided sword and depends on the value Ċ On the one hand, tearing down an edifice may have two main drawbacks. Firstly, this would result in a huge amount of wasted embodied energy. This energy has been consumed by factories to make building materials such as concrete, brick or cement. Therefore, if a building knocks down without any recycling, the new material should be made from the raw materials which result in a big number of disposals. Secondly, some of these old buildings are tourist attractions. Many people are fond of historical structures, especially if they are built in a specific era and architecture. As a result, if governments invest in maintaining and repairing these buildings, the expenditure will pay back by increasing the numbers of tourists over time. Ċ On the other hand, replacing these buildings with new modern ones would positively affect building energy consumption reduction and safety. Many materials have been developing in recent years. For example, Low-E glass could reduce heat transfer simultaneously with allowing daylight penetration that consequently reduces cooling and lighting energy consumption. Moreover, these materials have become safer in the case of natural disasters such as earthquakes and fires. Constructing with light pre-fabricated materials not only decreases the building weight in the case of seismic but also accelerates the construction process. Ċ In conclusion, pulling down an old building or paying for maintenance is likely to depend on the building's value and in my opinion, both of these options could be favourable.