Government spending on restroration of old buildings in cities should be stopped. Instead they should spend money in housing and road development . Do you agree or disagree with this.

Proponents argue that government expenses on repairing historical places should be halted, and that amount must be used in the construction of the city

whereas

opponents disagree with the above point. In my view of thinking, the restoration of ancestral buildings which are the unique identity of our cities is a necessary step for any regime.

Additionally

, these places help to earn money for councils through tourism.

To begin

with, every town in the world consists of distinct architectural houses from centuries. These symbols not only are the pride of locals but

also

preserve their historical moments.

Although

spending on road and housing development can be helpful to citizens, the refurbishment of old buildings is required to teach the generations about the past of our city.

For instance

, my nephew always asks me about the story of the Holkar family after he sees the Holkar Palace in my village.

Secondly

, on the one hand, spending on city development like streets, lights, or homes does not provide any sort of income to councils

whereas

,

on the other hand

, well-maintained historical places generate great revenue for the government.

Furthermore

, the bloom in the travelling industry can help local businesses to grow.

Moreover

, the increasing number of visitors makes the region popular in the world.

For example

, 82% of cities in India are spending one-third of their budget on restoring historical palaces, and in return, these attractions are giving hefty revenue through tourism.

To conclude

, the maintenance of old architecture is a recommended step for the rulers of any region around the globe

due to

the fact that

such

houses hold the history of their surroundings, and a good amount of money,

as well as

popularity, can be gained through the well-structured buildings from an old era.