Money should be spent on creating new public buildings such as museums or town halls rather than renovating the existing ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is believed that money ought to be disbursed on forming new public settings,

for instance

Linking Words

, museums and town halls as distinct from the renovation process of the current buildings. In my opinion, the public finance should be allocated to both the renovation and the creation of cultural areas as they are valuable assets of a city

independently

Suggestion

independent

of the mode of existence. Governments should pay attention to conserve historical museums, regional areas or other buildings, as they are vital for a country to attract tourists. Some of them are successfully doing it through restorative methods.

Conversely

Linking Words

, others who do not have any remnants of historical places are obliged to create new ones. Take

for instance

Linking Words

, the United Arab Emirates are constructing hundreds of buildings every year to develop its nation culturally, and

thus

Linking Words

it is one of the most visited country in its region. European countries have many renovated museums and halls, and

this

Linking Words

gives a feeling as you were in a time tunnel.

However

Linking Words

, newly constructed buildings are

also

Linking Words

successful at transmitting the ancient texture of that city to visitors. In terms of costs, the renovation can be by far more expensive than the construction of a new one, yet rich countries will overcome

this

Linking Words

problem easily. In conclusion, public settings play an important role in the cultural development of the nation, and

thus

Linking Words

they are highly preferred tourist attractions. I believe that, money should be spent on both of them. Rich countries may allot more funds for the restoration, while poor ones have to focus on building these with spending the least amount as possible.