A lot of money is spent on repairing old buildings. Instead of repairing old buildings that money should be spent on knocking down old buildings and building new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that a huge amount of funds is being spent on renovating old structures, whereas new buildings should be built with these funds and old ones should be destroyed. I completely disagree with

this

statement because old buildings represent the heritage of the nation and they are major tourist attractions. Heritage of any country symbolizes the culture and history of that nation and old buildings are a visual representation of the culture of a particular place.

This

is because they are usually built by local people as per their local art and knowledge.

Moreover

, in the era of skyscrapers, these structures are definitely something precious to be preserved.

For example

, Flinders street railway station in Melbourne is way more beautiful than other modern buildings like Eureka Tower. Another reason why vintage buildings should be protected is the number of tourists they attract. Any person who wants to explore a particular place would like to know about the local culture and art. If states would preserve their history, more tourists will come which will eventually result in economical development. For an instance, Taj Mahal in India is among 7 wonders of the world because of its beauty and history. It appeals to almost every visitor. In conclusion, old monuments should be conserved as a symbol of the legacy. It will only add up to an enhancement in the economy of a country by luring the tourists from all over the world. It is recommended that finances should be provided by the government to keep these structures safe and secure by renovating them.