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.

Throughout certain amounts of time many architectural buildings, that have historic and cultural value get old and require restoration and renovation services. It is popularly known that these kinds of activities are very expensive and even sometimes cause the default of a nation. Many experts argue that rather than obtaining and renewing them, it is much more adequate to invest in the development of the infrastructure of the city. Personally, I give preference to giving new life to old buildings.

Firstly

, I would like to mention the fact that any historic building adds value to the country's placement in tourist destinations. Many people like myself enjoy taking a route to a place that has museums, theatres, galleries and concert halls just like in Rome, London and so on.

This

brings us to the point when actually those equities get monetised via the attraction of travellers.

Secondly

, any new infrastructure requires a lot more money than restoration. Usually at

this

point state has to involve in planning and

then

implementing the project people like architects, designers, workers, managers and the list goes on. It is already visible that

this

contradicts the desire to keep the cost low.

Besides

construction works, always put a noisy sound to the city's life and annoy people around. Overall, any kind of work that requires a huge amount of funds needs to be taken into consideration not only by the state itself but

also

via consultation with experts. In my opinion, giving reasonable attention to the above-mentioned, historic buildings can actually provide revenue for the municipality.