The restoration of old buildings in major cities in the world spends numerous government expenditures. This money should be used in new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There currently exists a hot debate over whether a large proportion of government expenses should be allocated to restore historical architecture or be invested in constructing new houses and roads. From my personal point of view, spending on new housing and road improvement has a far greater value between the two and its budget allocation is necessary.
A primary reason that sufficient funding should be provided towards building houses and roads is that the employment provided by such public works may relieve the financial burden of working families. For one thing, new housing and road projects may initially require tremendous amounts of labour and materials, thus creating various job opportunities for engineers, truck drivers and electricians, among others. Once the projects are completed, ongoing maintenance work would need to be covered in the new areas. Filling these vacancies would generate income for workers and thus ease the burden of living for many households.
Moreover, reallocating the budget to make progress on new homes and better roads may enhance productivity in the economy. Advanced basic infrastructure, road systems in particular, would establish an effective transport network. If the government were to withdraw funds from restorations and designate a higher percentage of expenditure to achieve well-maintained roads, traffic jams could be reduced or even been eliminated to some extent. As a result, residents, businesspeople and officials may waste less time on the road, which allows extra hours for other economic activities.
There is no doubt that restoring traditional buildings to their original form can stimulate the economy through the tourist industry. Examples of cultural heritage that are well preserved may attract...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document