Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham."In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced b

People generally would like to make use of newer stuffs, from scale of home to city and etc. In this topic, writer thinks replacing old hall by new building will be more energy efficient. This claim is somehow true but there are some cases that should be investigated.

Designing and constructing new building needs money, worker, and many other resources. As the writer declares, the most weakness of old hall is not being energy efficient. Designing an energy efficient building needs expert designers and if will cost a lot.

Energy has many types, the writer doesn’t mention exactly which types of energy are using ineffective in old town hall. So that they could just change those specific energy systems instead of destroying whole building. For example if this building is wasting cool and heat, the cool and heat systems can substituted by new systems. This will cost more times less than constructing new building.

Another point of view is to clear the age of old town hall. If it has been built about 5 years ago, It means it takes enough cost for these years and replacing it with new building would waste a huge amount of money.

Furthermore destroying a building and constructing a new one may have effect on traffic and peoples living and etc.