Many people believe that money should be allocated on building new public places such as museums or town halls instead of renovating them. Personally, I partly agree with this perspective as more public buildings should be constructed in places where there is a limited number of facilities, while the government should renovate the existing ones if there are excessive public buildings already.
On the one hand, it is crucial to construct more buildings in places where there is a lack of facilities, especially in rural areas. Due to the insufficient funds, these areas suffer from the absence of public buildings as well as commercial areas, leading to geographical constraints and limited access to essential services. For example, people in rural areas often have to travel to cities to pursue work. Moreover, they also often travel far to buy groceries. Consequently, it is necessary to construct public buildings in these places as it improves access to essential services and provides better facilities for citizens such as healthcare, education, and technology.
On the other hand, it is unnecessary to construct public buildings in urban areas as there are excessive ones already. In this day and age, cities are suffering from overpopulation and environmental problems, and if the government builds more infrastructure, it would exacerbate the problems. Thus, instead of constructing new buildings, the government should renovate the existing ones in order to improve the quality of life of individuals and enhance overall citizens’ well-being. For instance, rather than building towers and commercial areas, public parks would encourage citizens to exercise and socialize, which improve mental and physical well-being.
In conclusion, I believe new public buildings should be built on rural areas to improve access to necessary services, while urban areas’ existed buildings should be renovated to enhance citizens’ quality of life and overall well-being.