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

It is always difficult to choose whether the government should maintain and repair old buildings or put the effort to build new ones. Some people believe that constructing new structures will create more jobs, while the opponents of this idea claim that restoring the existing monuments is more economical for the public budget. I personally believe that we should look after old buildings. I will elaborate on my opinion in the following paragraphs. First of all, preserving the city's museums and halls has proven to be a cheaper solution than building new public spaces, especially for developing countries. For example, the Iranian government rebuilt all of Isfahan's historic buildings instead of public demand for constructing new luxury monuments. The government estimate that the real cost is only 3% compared to the plan to build new public buildings. Therefore, it is crystal clear the preservation of the existing sites is vital to government financial resources. Secondly, old buildings are the cultural and historical components of every city. Moreover, to learn about the way of living in the past, it is highly important to preserve the historical sites. In this way, people’s names and history attached with those places and thus emotions is also the key factor for the government to put more focus on reinventing existing places than creating new ones. For example, the Iranian government believed in preserving ancient buildings in Yazd because it depicts Iranian rich culture, history, and architecture. Thus, preserving them is the responsibility of the present generation. In conclusion, restoring the old structures not only maintains the beauty of the cultural and historical city but also is much more convenient for public finance. Thus, I believe it is a better choice to maintain old buildings instead of constructing new ones.