It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings. This money should be spent on building modern buildings instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some opine that it is futile to spend money on the restoration of old buildings and it would be better to build modern ones

instead

. I partially agree with their view. I believe that old buildings which are neither beautiful nor useful should be demolished, whereas, ancient buildings which have unique identity or historic significance should be repaired and restored at all cost. The most compelling argument to endorse abolishment of primitive run down building is that renovation of these buildings is an utter waste of precious financial resources. Since these buildings are not compatible with the demands and requirement of contemporary times spending a hefty amount of money for their restoration will not yield any fruitful outcomes.

Moreover

, the new buildings could be made more secure and comfortable for living.

However

, building that has a culture or historic significance should be preserved.

Although

there are some historical buildings that have more historical value, it is important to preserve them because they signify the ancient era of human civilization. These places are tourist attraction and generate enough foreign exchange to cover their renovation cost.

For instance

, the Rohtas Fort, Minar-e-Pakistan, Shalimar garden and Lok Virsa Museum every year large amount of money is spent to keep their beauty intact.

Thus

we would be losing a lot of our historical and cultural background if we demolish

such

buildings. In conclusion, it is stated that the decision to preserve or demolish old buildings should be made considering many factors. If the old buildings can be used effectively or giving a unique identity to a place for tourist attraction it should be definitely preserved. If a building is occupying a lot of space and not as living standard

then

it should be demolished.