The restoration of old building in major cities in the world costs enormous government expenditure. This money should be used in new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

People hold different views about whether government expenditure should be paid to new

buildings

and roads or to restore the old

buildings

in the major cities of the world.

While

some propose that money should pay for the new infrastructure, I personally agree with those who convey that protecting old

buildings

is more meaningful. One disputable benefit of protecting the ancient building is the growth of incomes of the local community. Old

buildings

as one part of the ancient civilization, with their own special characteristics, play an important role in spreading the traditional culture in some way.

Thus

, the local official authority could develop their special local cultural tourism by protecting and restoring the old architecture.

This

process increases local job occupations, which contributes to the growth of the local economy. Meanwhile, another positive facet is to enhance the belonging and identification of local residents. If the old properties of major cities cannot be preserved well, the young generation tends to lose their deep understanding of the place where they are living. So, it is meaningful to keep the old places which convey the traditional culture. When local society takes the approach to know the traditions, they will find something common with their life now. Eventually,

this

process is easy to inspire the social belongings of local inhabitants. In conclusion, I reaffirm my position that restoring old architecture in major cities around the world can not only improve the money for the local population but

also

spread the belonging and identification of local inhabitants.