Government spending on restoration of old buildings in cities should be stopped. Instead they should spend the money for housing and road development. Do you agree or disagree?

Restoring heritage buildings in a large metropolitan city by the government should be halted,

instead

the

money

need to be spent on improving infrastructure and residence for the general public. In my opinion, I disagree on

this

as the significance of the buildings are important and the history of our country needs to be maintained. The common misconception is that spending on traditional building incur high cost to the taxpayers and results in tax

money

used for the wrong priorities.

For instance

, due to raising housing cost and increasing traffic congestion during peak hours.People think that

instead

of maintaining the old building, government should spend

money

on affordable housing or improving the roads.

In addition

, the old buildings are considered a hindrance to the development and incur high maintenance cost.

For example

, maintaining the old building would be expensive

instead

the space could be used for newer larger buildings.

However

, the significance of

such

historic buildings is important and needs to be preserved. To give an example, Gandhi’s house in India stands for his life, achievement and his contributions to the country and its people.

Moreover

, older building preserves the history and culture that could be used to learn the life of older generations and important events.

In addition

, its architecture and design could be used to understand its time.

Also

,

money

could be raised by making it a tourist attraction and the funds could be used for maintaining it. In conclusion, Older building needs to be preserved to retain its architecture, to preserve the history and culture of its time. In future

money

from tourism and other events could be used for its maintanance