A lot of money is spent on renovating old buildings. We should knock them down and build modern ones instead. To what extent to you agree or disagree with these statements

According to

many people, old constructions should be preserved by spending money on renovation but, the opposition believes that they are of no use and should be demolished to replace with the latest buildings. There are pros and cons for both these views, which will be discussed

further

through

this

essay with examples.

To begin

with, ancient architecture is considered priceless and reveals the history of that nation. Many

such

historical constructions and monuments have stood out in history that brought a representation to that nation.

For example

, the Taj Mahal was built by

Shazahan

Correct your spelling

Shanahan

for his wife as a token of his love but, in no time the white marble beauty become one of the seven wonders of the world. So, if there was no investment made in renovating

such

ancient monuments, the Taj Mahal would not have been one of the seven wonders of the world.

On the other hand

, keeping up the old buildings without remodelling or renovating is a tough task. Especially when those were owned by the government and there is no revenue generated out of the property,

such

architectures must be replaced by useful infrastructures like hospitals, public parks or schools.

For example

, in a Country like India where there are many religious constructions like Temples, Mosques that were built centuries ago in government lands that are of no use and are either collapsed with age or

due to

weather extremities,

such

ancient places should be demolished for building modern public infrastructure. So,

to conclude

whether a historical architecture is renovated, or demolished by the government should be decided based on its importance of it in the nation and the revenue generated from it.