In this contemporary society, the restoration of old buildings in many cities requires huge government expenditures. While some people believe that would be better to spend this money on improving the infrastructure in the city. I strongly agree with the idea that it is waste that authorities spend money on restoring old structures.
On the one hand, there are many advantage of restoring previous constructions should be put on top priority. Firstly, this policy will preserve cultural heritage such as Notre Dame Cathedral in Ho Chi Minh city existed in long time period, Saint Peter’s Cathedral in Turkey and the Colosseum in Rome. Secondly, it also create economic benefits from tourism. Obviously, the cultural heritages can be a point of travel, bringing in a huge incomes for the city. Moreover, thanks to tourism, it will create more opportunity of jobs for people, decreasing the proportion of unemployment in the country. By the way, the restoring of buildings contribute to education and significant inspiration for young generations about the true value of the traditional country.
On the other hand, new housing and road structures need to be remined. To begin with, if the populations growing, it will require new housing and infrastructure to accommodate living and economic needs. Frankly, with the new roads improve transportation, reducing congestion, accidents better. For example, when the road is small, it will easily cause traffic jams and accidents because of the desire to quickly escape from there. When the road is repaired, it is widened and the infrastructure is improved, many negative problems will be solved. Furthermore, it is more cost-efficient and time-saving that constructing new structures and infrastructure in the urban compared to restoring old buildings.
In conclusion, both of restoring old buildings and constructing new infrastructure are necessary. Instead, Governments should be balance their finance to preserve the cultural heritage while facing urban development demand.