There is an ongoing debate that governments should invest in the restoration and preservation of historical monuments instead of constructing new residential areas, offices, and roads. From my point of view, governments should keep a balance between investing in the restoration of old buildings and new developments.
On the one hand, it is obvious that old buildings are feasible because of their old age. They require more attention and money to preserve. It is true that historical buildings are important in every country. This is because they are a symbol of nationality and identity of countries. So whenever governments invest in the restoration and preservation of old buildings, it can help to increase the financial stability of the country. This is because many visitors pay a visit to historical monuments every year and they are always willing to buy historical items, even in huge amounts. Moreover, they have to pay to enter these sites. Hence, it helps to improve tourism in the country.
On the other hand, investing in new development is also crucial. This is mainly because of overpopulation in the countries. Nowadays, the number of people is increasing and it requires many facilities. So, governments should invest in building new accommodations, offices, and roads. As a result, the country will be adapted to the residents’ needs. In addition, the more offices are built, the more job opportunities are created. As a result, it prevents unemployment in the country.
To sum up, there is a controversy that old building restoration should be invested by governments instead of building new houses, offices, and roads. I totally disagree with the idea. In my opinion, governments should maintain a balance between both of them.