It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings. This money should be spent on building modern buildings instead. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

The ancient buildings are one of the valuable inheritance left by the ancestors that should be preserved by the generations. However, it is argued that the maintenance of historical architecture requires an amount of money and the funding has to be used to establishing new structures. This essay will discuss that according to me, I completely disagree with this notion because these buildings hold historic importance and also in economic growth as they promote tourism. Although the reconstruction and preservation of historical buildings are costly, it is essential to nurture them because they symbolize the ancient era of human civilization. If they are not preserved, they will eventually lose and information about them will renounce also. For instance, the Prambanan temple that is hundreds of years old shrine is never having attention from the government and generations to reconstruct this temple, ultimately, it slightly becomes extinct particularly for the history of handwriting evidence indeed. Hence, the young generations cannot know anything about this estate in the future. In addition, the historical structures play an important role in the growth of the economy because they attract visitors to visit and learn about these buildings. For example, the Ancient Greek constructions have appealed to tourists around 100, 000 people during 2020 and it increases the country incomes around 10%. So that is why the government should decide to preserve these heritages both for tourism and for education. To conclude, even though it is argued that the construction and maintenance of historical buildings will spend a lot of money and should be replaced by new structures, I do disagree with this notion, because it is not only removing the historic marker but also losing the culture and knowledge of human civilization.