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

Maintaining and restoring heritage building could be costly. Some argue

instead

of spending heaps on development of old cultural buildings, government should invest on building new houses and roads. I completely disagree with

this

statement because maintaining our heritage sites not only keeps us connected to our past but is more cost efficient option when compared to developing new house.

To begin

with, old buildings are the tangible link to our past, which not only offers insights into our past but

also

enhance tourism. By visiting these monumnets an individual can gain indepth knowledge about its past and, understand the construction and architectural style used during that period.

For example

: Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders. Government spend millions of dollar to restore it's beauty, not only to attract numerous tourists each year but to make people understand its history.

Furthermore

, restoration of a heritage site would cost less than developing a new building or roads.

In other words

, In development of a new building so many resources are used ranging from raw material to human capital. So the more sustainable option in

this

scenario would be restoring. To exemplify:

last

year, France spent $1.9 million in improvment of the eiffel tower which was 2 times less than the construction of houses in dubai to over come the problem of overpopulation. In conclusion, I believe conservation of old buildings is more important as it provides us the knowledge about our past and gives a city it's recognition.

Moreover

, it is

also

more sustainable option.