Money should be spent on creating new buildings such as museums or town halls rather than renovating the existing ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Each city has different types of buildings therein some are dilapidated and the government has spent more and more money to renovate them. However, if money is spent on building new establishments and destroying old one, it will be more profitable. Overall, I can partly agree with the topic statement because some old museums and town halls have historic value and replacing them with modern buildings destroy the integrity picture of history such constructions. Firstly, few people can deny the fact that all buildings eventually are eroded, and regardless of what the government does, they will be destroyed. Therefore, debilitated constructions, perhaps, are better demolishing for diminishing waste of money. For example, it has been noticed that the more year old constructions the less help renovating and simultaneously has more cost. Consequently, if we replace such buildings on the new one it has the benefit in parts of comfort because new facilities are constructed by modern material, and less money is needed to be spent on them. Nevertheless, many dilapidated constructions are ancient and have historic value in part of memory about our famous ancestors or the history of a city. In Poland, for instance, each city has an old centre where Town Hall was constructed with unique style, and it is simultaneously a museum, the seal of history and the place for many events. Likewise, all ancient buildings were constructed on a historically essential place, so new buildings do not have the same value for a country. Thus, the government would have to decide that constructions can demolish those that are not. To conclude, each country has made its own decision about existing constructions. Notwithstanding, I believe that old buildings, which are monumental, need preservation as long as it is possible that partly correspond to the topic statement.