Recently, a discussion has taken place, where the question arose: which facilities is it better for the local authorities to give money to? Various opinions have been stated, arguing the importance of this or that option, main sides being museums and parks. So, when it comes to finding the balance between practicality and aesthetics, what factors should be considered?
When it comes to museum, we can’t but mention the conflict between their educational value and their outdatedness. On the one hand, they are a brilliant means of exposing people of all ages to history, culture, and art. Its role in forming an intellectual and aware society can’t be diminished. Still, on the other hand, it would be quite realistic to admit that the concept of museum can well be replaced, considering the numerous online resources we possess today.
As for the parks, at first sight, they would seem to be the last public space to allot finances to, given their purely aesthetic value. However, one should remember the existence of the phrase “concrete jungles”. It’s ridiculous to deny that nowadays dozens of cities come to mind when we hear these depressing words. That’s why green spaces are irreplaceable: not only do they improve people’s mood, but they also serve as many things, such as locations of meetings, areas for sports, or places for events.
Summing up, it’s worth mentioning that although today great value is attributed to pure pragmatism, parks should not be the last option to consider. They are multifunctional, and they are also a great way to decorate the city and show off its wealth.