Every year, a significant amount of money is spent on preserving heritage sites. while some people think the funds are better spent on new projects people can use, I believe renovating buildings is far more effective in promoting the history and culture of a community.
It is apparent that the millions of dollars spent on restoration will benefit the community if it is used for building new projects that are essential. This is because new developments are built with the needs of the people in mind, and they will provide economical support to the area. For example, new houses can provide good living conditions, and roads connect several towns. These projects are also more functional and up to date, which can result in faster returns of the funds invested in them. Thus, they get a lot of support from society compared to reconstracting old ones.
On the other hand, even though the the benefits are not direct, rebuilding old structures that are integral to the communitiy’s culture is worth all the money spent on them. Old buildings hold the stories and identity of the area they are built on, ergo renovating them and passing them to the next generation will help keep the heritage of the community. These monuments are also big sources of tourisem, which by it self generate a lot of money that can be used to construct all the necessary facilities the community needs. For example, renovated heritage sites in Ethiopia generated lot of incomes, which were used to build libraries, roads and schools that were needed.
In conclusion, while I understand the need to focus on working on new projects that are needed by the society, I firmly disagree with the idea to take the funds from restoration projects to achive is goal. Because these buildings are far more important than any new project.