There is a view that allocating much money for building in outdoor public areas plays a big role in towns and urban zones. There are many sides that agree with this phenomenon, such as easing the cost of houses and developing the country. However, I believe that this idea can affect people badly, such as bringing in new modern styles of houses from other countries, like Japan, South Korea, and so on.
On the one hand, building houses and institutions is allocated a lot of money, and many houses are built in towns and urban areas. Therefore, the price of houses is falling day by day, and people who suffered from homelessness and could not live well in the past can buy a new house for living. As a result, a host of people mention, “This way is important for individuals.” Developing a country in this field is more important compared with other domains. Indeed, governments, in order to rise in the world rankings, use heavy investment in housing. As a result, governments can become rivals for the five strongest countries. This figure is the most important for governments.
On the other hand, spending lots of money for building in all parts of the world is a disadvantage in the opinion of some people. Due to a lower level of education that requires investment, governments and local people consider building new houses (investing heavily in building) unnecessary for them – this is at the mercy of education. Secondly, the construction of new expensive houses instead of old ones causes a loss of culture. To give an explanation, in almost all situations, building different styles of houses that are new (foreign countries’ styles) face opposition because people do not like these houses.
In conclusion, if governments want to develop, they should invest in buildings. I believe that people who want to save their culture need to invest in their education and also protest against investing deposits for building.