Some people think that too much money has been spent looking after and repairing old buildings, so we should knock down old buildings and build modern ones instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that restoring old

buildings

requires too much money and the budget should be used for the construction of new and modern houses

instead

. I partly agree that it would not hurt to modernize the

buildings

but restoration is both cheaper and more important for

history

. The old

buildings

take a lot of effort and money to be useful and safe again, as most of them do not meet the needs of new regulations.

Instead

of fixing all of them, it might be smarter to knock them down and build new ones from the beginning.

Furthermore

, as the cities got developed and enhanced, a new city plan could be needed to modernize the city and more beneficial and visually fitting

buildings

can be constructed in comparison to keeping the old ones. On the other side, the old structures carry a

history

inside of them,

thus

it is important for culture to restore these meaningful

buildings

.

For instance

, most of the tourist attractions in various cities are historical

buildings

and it would have been

such

a loss if they would have destroyed them because it was pricey to fix. The decision to keep them enables cities to save their

history

, enhance their culture and attract more tourists which contributes to the local economy.

In addition

, destroying a current house and building a brand new one does not cost less at all.

Thus

it is important for cultural development and cost-effective construction. In conclusion, even though I agree that new city plans and safely regulated modern houses are appealing, I think keeping

history

alive through restoration contributes to cultural development

besides

it is more cost-effective.