The old building always reflects typically own local civilization, tradition, and so on. These historical buildings, whether the responsible regime carefully protects to reasonably use public funds or precious fund will properly allocate other possible ways. I agree remarkably with this factual statement. I intend to discuss in the following why the authority should take care of ancient buildings.
To begin with, traditional buildings have historical values that typically indicate a society's cultural identity. Without properly protecting old buildings, it is hard to carefully secure own community tradition and civilization. Even, young people gain knowledge of ancestry building how their noble ancestor willingly sacrificed their precious life to positively establish a well cultured society for them. Besides, if the regime would properly protect old buildings, then the tourists will lure that buildings and authority would naturally generate funds from those tourists. Additionally, many countries have built new buildings and carefully restored old buildings due to wisely keeping, maintaining an impressive combination of old and new which are allured tourists.
However, people who adamantly oppose this statement are thinking that restoring old buildings is a waste of taxpayer money. For example, many underdeveloped countries have not adequate funds to allocate the repair of historic buildings because they have other priority sectors such as health, education, and so on. Furthermore, the population of many countries has increased alarmingly but space to live has decreased so that a traditional building will be replaced to construct modern buildings.
To sum up, the conventional building has traditional values so that the regime should properly take care of them otherwise it will demolish society's civilization.
The
old
building
always reflects
typically
own
local civilization, tradition, and
so
on. These historical
buildings
, whether the responsible regime
carefully
protects to
reasonably
use
public funds or precious
fund
will
properly
allocate other possible ways. I
agree
remarkably
with this factual statement. I intend to discuss in the following why the authority should take care of ancient buildings.
To
begin
with, traditional
buildings
have historical values that
typically
indicate a society's cultural identity. Without
properly
protecting
old
buildings
, it is
hard
to
carefully
secure
own
community tradition and civilization. Even, young
people
gain knowledge of ancestry
building
how their noble ancestor
willingly
sacrificed their precious life to
positively
establish a well cultured society for them.
Besides
, if the regime would
properly
protect
old
buildings
, then the tourists will lure that
buildings
and authority would
naturally
generate funds from those tourists.
Additionally
,
many
countries have built new
buildings
and
carefully
restored
old
buildings
due to
wisely
keeping, maintaining an impressive combination of
old
and new which
are allured
tourists.
However
,
people
who
adamantly
oppose this statement are thinking that restoring
old
buildings
is a waste of taxpayer money.
For example
,
many
underdeveloped countries have not adequate funds to allocate the repair of historic
buildings
because
they have other priority sectors such as health, education, and
so
on.
Furthermore
, the population of
many
countries has increased
alarmingly
but
space to
live
has decreased
so
that a traditional
building
will
be replaced
to construct modern buildings.
To sum up, the conventional
building
has traditional values
so
that the regime should
properly
take care of them
otherwise
it will demolish society's civilization.