Governments should spend less money on restoring old buildings and more money for new housing and roads development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many governments carry out city modernization projects in order to elevate the status of relevant cities.

This

includes renovation of existing old

buildings

that some argue is a waste of money when they could be utilized for the construction of new

buildings

and roads. In my view, we should take the decision depending on the value of the historical building. On one hand, restoring a historical building to its original state can cost considerably as it requires more staff and specific restoration technologies. If funds can be diverted to infrastructure development

instead

of the above task, many would benefit from it.

For example

, thousands of homeless people could be accommodated in a single flat by halting a high budget conservation project.

In addition

, people will consider the benefits that they receive from the government which may not include a pleasant sight of a restored building.

Hence

, it is important that more financial resources are allocated to the development of public resources.

On the other hand

, there are some

buildings

that are considered iconic symbols of a country. For an instance, it could be a religious or culturally important place where people from all over the world visit to observe it.

Thus

, it is justifiable when costly restorations are arranged for

such

unique places.

However

, old

buildings

without

such

values could be demolished and used efficiently for new constructions

instead

of funding for restoration. In conclusion, the focus on historic building restoration has become a debatable topic where fund allocation should be analyzed thoroughly. My opinion is that allocating budget should be decided based on the value of the building that it presents to a country rather than cost only consideration.