Nowadays, a significant amount of money is spent on the maintenance of old structures in many cities. Some people believe that the same amount may be utilized for other infrastructure projects instead of the above. I disagree with this view. In this essay, I shall explain why the budget to be spent for preserving and maintaining old buildings and monuments of cities should not be curtailed.
The roadside buildings in older cities are usually stone structures that represent the culture and heritage of that place. Many of them are in poor condition. Even so, in my opinion, they should be restored because these buildings are strongly attached to the history of the city. If they are demolished, a part of the history will also die out and it is a national loss. On the other hand, maintaining buildings of historical value in good condition is a great way to bring tourism to the city. The tourism generates new employment opportunities and revenue. A part of this revenue may be utilized for new infrastructure projects like better highway connectivity, new housing schemes etc. These infrastructure projects may also provide a hassle-free experience of the city tourists. For example, good metro train connectivity to the oldest part of a heavily populated city will ensure better infrastructure and it will promote tourism as well.
Having said that, those buildings that are beyond repair should definitely be demolished and new structures should be built in their place. Allowing them to stay in their dilapidated state poses serious threat to life and property.
To conclude, old structures and monuments tell us about the history and time-journey of the city. Their maintenance and preservation shall enhance the reputation of the city and create employment opportunities and revenue. Even so, buildings that cannot be restored should be destroyed.
Nowadays, a significant amount of money
is spent
on the maintenance of
old
structures
in
many
cities
.
Some
people
believe that the same amount may
be utilized
for other
infrastructure
projects
instead
of the above. I disagree with this view. In this essay, I shall
explain
why the budget to
be spent
for preserving and maintaining
old
buildings
and monuments of
cities
should not
be curtailed
.
The roadside
buildings
in older
cities
are
usually
stone
structures
that represent the culture and heritage of that place.
Many
of them are in poor condition. Even
so
, in my opinion, they should
be restored
because
these
buildings
are
strongly
attached to the history of the city. If they
are demolished
, a part of the history will
also
die
out and it is a national loss.
On the other hand
, maintaining
buildings
of historical value in
good
condition is a great way to bring tourism to the city. The tourism generates
new
employment opportunities and revenue. A part of this revenue may
be utilized
for
new
infrastructure
projects like better highway connectivity,
new
housing schemes etc. These
infrastructure
projects may
also
provide a hassle-free experience of the city tourists.
For example
,
good
metro train connectivity to the oldest part of a
heavily
populated city will ensure better
infrastructure
and it will promote tourism
as well
.
Having said that, those
buildings
that are beyond repair should definitely
be demolished
and
new
structures
should
be built
in their place. Allowing them to stay in their dilapidated state poses serious threat to life and property.
To conclude
,
old
structures
and monuments
tell
us about the history and time-journey of the city. Their maintenance and preservation shall enhance the reputation of the city and create employment opportunities and revenue. Even
so
,
buildings
that cannot
be restored
should be
destroyed
.