The distribution of government funds has been debated for a long time. Several countries choose to contribute to the preservation of old buildings, while others tend to think that the government should invest in new housing and road improvement instead. I partly agree with the latter view for several key reasons, although old buildings are an essential part of cities’ history.
What new infrastructure provides is modern buildings equipped with digital technology and expanded roads. If funds are allocated for these, the public will not be disturbed by potholes or poor house conditions. To illustrate, the government of Kazan, the city where I live, has recently launched a project to build new apartments in the centre and repair major roads. As a result, residents who previously struggled to find affordable central housing now have more options, and traffic flow has noticeably improved. Thus, people are relieved since they do not have any daily inconveniences.
At the same time, old buildings carry historical and cultural value that cannot be replaced by modern structures. They are physical expressions of a nation’s legacy. By destroying them, the population might lose the connection to their ancestors. A typical case would be the governments of European countries that fund the preservation of cathedrals and ancient houses. This allows tourists to experience the history of the country. Without such investment, young people might never understand how their ancestors lived or worked. In this sense, spending money on repairing old buildings is essential for maintaining the connection between generations.
To sum up, the investment in constructing new houses and repairing roads offers tangible benefits, such as well-equipped buildings and smooth roads. Nevertheless, the government ought to allocate funds to maintaining historical residences.