Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It’s more important for government to spend money on new buildings than to preserve historic or traditional buildings and homes.
Beyond a shadow of doubt, both the new buildings and the historic buildings play a significant role in the civilization of the world. There is a debate among different people about whether government should utilize more resources in developing modern buildings than in maintaining ancient ones. I agree with the assertion that governments are supposed to spend more money to preserve historic buildings.
First and foremost, I maintain that historic buildings and homes represent an important part of history, which deserves to be cherished. It is undisputable that without history a country is barely an intact country.
Furthermore, I contend that some traditional buildings could be better used as landmarks or tourist spots. The unique features of ancient structures spur tourism activities, and this will undoubtedly benefit the economy of the country. Consequently, the development of the tourism activities would provide more job opportunities.
Admittedly, there are several advantages of developing modern buildings. For instance, modern buildings are considered to be more comfortable since they’re furnished with nice fittings. Besides, government could invest some recreation center with all kinds of entertainment equipment.
To put the issue into perspective, I’m a proponent of the assertion that government should spend money to preserve historic buildings and homes than to develop new buildings, because from my point of view, the former approach is more advantageous than the latter ones. Even though I concede that modern buildings could be attractive, I contend that historic buildings are more valuable and worthy being preserved.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document