According to the reading passage, the writer claims that living roofs are beneficial for people while the lecturer casts doubt about it.
To begin with, the author maintains that green roofs would solve the problem of the shortage of city parks. However, the professor argues that the expanded size of the parks don’t mean that people have more opportunity to access to the park. Moreover, green roofs aren’t truly alternatives for city parks since people can’t go on roofs.
In addition, the text asserts that living roofs would provide the spectacular view for many people because it’s able to improve the beauty of the city instead of the banal concrete roofs. On the other hand, the speak challenges this point by rebutting that green roofs don’t offer a fantastic view for people since most pedestrians walk on the side-walk. Thus, they aren’t able to see the whole part of the roofs.
Lastly, green roofs enable people to save money. As green roofs are able to control the temperature, people save energy because they don’t need to install additional heat-controlling systems. On the contrary, the lecture challenges that green roofs conversely make people to spend more money since they need additional costs. First, it is expensive to install and maintain the roofs. Moreover, it requires them to spend maintenance costs such as soils and fertilizer.
|