Restoration of old buildings in main cities involves enormous government expenditure. It would be more beneficial to spend this money to build new houses and roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.
The preservation of historic buildings in major cities places a significant burden on government budgets. However, despite this substantial drain on state funds, it is highly important that these old structures are maintained for future generations.
Old buildings give a city character. In other words, they tell the story of a city’s history and how it has changed over time. Cities like Prague, for instance, are massively popular tourist destinations because people can see magnificent buildings from centuries ago rather than be surrounded entirely by modern structures that are functional but have no soul.
A related idea is that old buildings can be a source of revenue rather than a great expense. As mentioned above, tourists flock to Prague to experience the atmosphere created by being surrounding by centuries of history, while very few people travel to some other cities in Europe that were rebuilt at the end of World War Two and feature drab square concrete buildings.
Nevertheless, a government’s finances are limited and the construction of new buildings and transport infrastructure is essential. Therefore, perhaps only buildings with substantial historic or architectural value should be preserved and just being old does not necessarily make something important.
Generally speaking, paying for the upkeep of old buildings should be a priority for governments due to their cultural and potential economic value. Cities are places where people live and life is better when we are surrounded by impressive monuments from the past that can inspire us for the future.
Nguồn: IELTS Unlocked