View Full Version : Another Analysis Of Argument- Feedback appreciated

12-01-2008, 10:39 PM
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 by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."

The author suggest that demolishing the century old town hall of Rockingham and replacing it with a modern and sophisticated building will save substantial amount of energy. The author has also added the scope of generating additional revenue by doing so.
I am not in total accord with this suggestion as I believe itís not supported by legitimate data and itís a predisposition of a few citizens who wants to replace the old architecture. It is assumed replacing the old building will lead to a potential increase of space and henceforth increase of revenue by renting the unutilized buildings. My first argument against this supposition is demolishing a historic building will cause a significant level of discontent among other citizens who take pride on the heritage of the city.

I would like to add to this, the data provided by the author about the area of the building is incomprehensive as it doesnít mention the total square footage of the building and the number of employees working in the facility. The alternatives to this proposal are not considered i.e. if there is a budget allocated for renovation, the cooling system of the building can be refurbished to make it energy efficient. The walls can be remodeled with insulating materials with advanced climate control thermostats which are more efficient. This approach will not only save the building from being eliminated but also may save expenditures towards complete rebuilding of the facility.

Additionally it is implied that the new facility will increase revenue through renting. However this is a hypothetical assumption without any concrete data to support .My foremost concern to this statement is the fact it does not mention who will be the potential tenant for this additional facility, what will be the target market, is there any potential business lined up to use this facility. The author has not supplemented his argument with none of these facts.

In order to conclude my criticism against this I would like to reiterate my firm belief against demolition of a historical building without a sagacious resolution of the problem.