There is no doubt that government must spend more on new buildings than old building. I completely agree with above statement because constructing new buildings can provide a better living standard, whereas old buildings have a higher risk of collapse, which may endanger lives if they are renovated.
On the one hand, the main reason is that new public buildings can definitely be sustained for many decades; however old buildings cannot last for the same period, even if they are renovated. As a result, they require less cost over their whole life; moreover, initial cost is a higher than that of renovating buildings. Furthermore, they reduce many types of risk that ensuring very crucial human being, rather than renovating old buildings. For instance, in our country, there is sudden risk of danger due to issues, such as earthquake, air pollution, and other factors. Most of the problems can be eradicated if the government ensures new buildings.
On the other hand, new public buildings look very beautiful, which many people are likely to choose them. They can be made to look more attractive on the outside as well as the inside. The buildings must be strong and powerful, able to bear weight and difference types mechanical devices, which is not possible in renovating building. Additionally, they are more environmentally friendly and must be produced using high-quality materials, using these materials maintain global standard, such as brick, sand, stone and concrete. As a result, they able to withstand air, sunlight, snow, heat and cold.
In conclusion: the governments should spend on new public buildings because of longevity, reduced risk, attractive appearance, and environmentally friendliness, whereas old buildings show similar drawbacks