In many cities there is a lack of space to develop and as a result, in order to modernize, old buildings are demolished and replaced with new buildings. What are the disadvantages of knocking down old buildings? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Due to the growth of population and the shortage of space in numerous cities, old constructions are being destroyed so as to innovate with the modern ones. In my view, this adaptation may be a rational solution in spite of a few drawbacks. To begin with the benefits of collapsing derelict architectures, as we know that because of their low quality, for instance slums, they can cause accidents, diseases such as lung cancer. . . Thus, we should alternate to standard buildings in order to contribute to the presentation of the urban, avoid those consequences. In addition, it can renovate the quality of life for residents by constructing better social facilities such as stadium, club, fitness and gym. . . On the other hand, knocking down all the traditional may not always be the best solution each time. There are architectures that historical value with the beauty of their cultures ought to be preserved all over the period. Moreover, during the construction, civilizations living near the constructed area can be bothered by noise, smog and ashes for a long time, likewise cause respiratory disease if they absorb too much or unfortunately occur industrial injures. Overall, the Government should consider carefully before starting to standardize all. I believe that substitution is a sensible solution except for historically valuable and vital buildings in cities.