Some people suggest that in order to improve the quality of life in cities, more state budget should be spent erecting monuments and providing paintings. However, in my opinion, this does not seem to be a practical idea.
First and foremost, the construction of monuments and statues occupies not only significant financial resources but also large quantities of land. Paintings, while perhaps not taking up much space, demand frequent preservation from deterioration due to natural damage. Offering more works of art is an interesting idea to help promote the living space inside cities, but not at any cost, especially when urban land funds are becoming increasingly scarce. Meanwhile, to enrich the cultural and spiritual life of a city, there are other feasible and more long-term measures, including developing sport centers, museums, libraries, and bookstores.
Moreover, the government is also presented with other priorities, such as infrastructural, medical, and environmental issues, to name but a few. Building, maintaining, and upgrading traffic infrastructure, for instance, requires substantial allocation. The need for advanced medical centers is also enormous, particularly in the context of post-COVID health decline across the community. Formulating and implementing environmental policies is yet another urgent task, given the accelerating threat of climate change. All of these are among the pressing issues to be addressed if life quality in cities is to be enhanced.
In conclusion, although many people emphasize the need to supplement city life with more pieces of art such as statues and paintings, I rather doubt the practicality of this notion, considering, first, the resources it would require and, second, other priorities.