There are a lot of old buildings in need of renovation in major cities which would be a massive undertaking with financial constraints. However, based on the opinion of some experts, it is better to divert those funds to build better infrastructure like housing and roads. Personally, I vote for the restoration of the buildings.

Buildings took a huge part in history, which is mostly built in major cities by a well-known architect and as a representation of their culture. Renovation and restoration are important for the building to

last

for another decade or so, but financial experts suggest to use the fund for city's infrastructures like housing and roads

instead

of spending it for old buildings. It is true that restoration requires a huge amount of money, but I believe doing it will be beneficial to people and the community. We've passed the historic world ward I and II and most of the casualties are seen on damaged building which serves as soldier shelter.

On the other hand

, damaged building is sometimes impossible to restore,

hence

making it as a ruin not only will make it as another tourist spot and

also

for the community to boost their tourism industry. Like the famous ruins in Cordillera Philippines where people visit the place and witness the beauty of damaged buildings. To conclude, the beautiful story behind old buildings and the benefit it could give by making it as a tourist spot will not only make the money worth spending on restoring it but

also

preserving the associated history of it.