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
.