The majority of countries prefer to spend large amounts of funds to restore historical buildings instead of modern housing. I totally agree with this development, and this essay will examine the advantages, disadvantages and my personal opinion of this analysis.
Nowadays, many countries try to preserve the history and culture by restoring historic buildings. Instead of constructing new housing, the old museums, cultural houses and theatres have a chance to be restored. The advantage of this decision is that governments keep their history and national identity, because it is vital for every country to save their heritage sites. This means that older generations have kept their legacy and have given it to the younger ones. In addition, keeping culture helps modern people stay connected with individuals who lived in the past. It creates a connection with the older generations. For instance, many European counties are well-known for their unique history that has influenced world politics. With restoration, they could attract millions of tourists.
However, there is a drawback of prioritising restoration projects. The main disadvantage is the high cost involved. Restorations of old buildings are always expensive, because that work denies a huge level of accuracy due to the fragility of buildings and special materials that old buildings require. As a result, individuals think that instead of spending funds on that, the governments should invest money in modern projects and develop urban infrastructure. This can increase the level of living standards and the economy of the country because the funds are spent directly on citizens’ needs.
In conclusion, despite the fact that it is an expensive investment, I agree with the decision to spend money on the restoration of culture and old buildings, because history is an essential part of every country and without it, governments will forget about their past and traditions, which are already fragile in modern society.