some people think that old architecture should be restore while others think that new constructions such as office, road, should be supported by the government? Do you agree or disagree?

A number of people conclude that preserving old architecture or constructing new ones should be supported by the government budget because of some possible benefits. I fully agree with this viewpoint and this essay will shed the light on the reasons behind my opinion. Firstly, it is obvious that restoring antique building have benefits in both historical and cultural aspects. By preserving the ancient structures, the country would be able to pass down its historical values. From that, the later generation can learn about their ancestors and the changes of the nation through different periods. Furthermore, historic buildings can advertise the country’s culture to the world and enhance the country's image as they have the nation’s uniqueness. For example more tourists come to Hue - Vietnam's former citadel - to see the old palaces where Kings once lived in. Secondly, it is undeniable that government investments in new public buildings would boost the economic benefits. With more residential establishments by the state, less people would face some social issue such as being homeless, traffic congestion, and unaffordable housing prices as these constructions would be at a reasonable cost. In addition, all structures invested be the government must go through strict safety standards. Therefore, people could be more assured when decide to use the facilities. As the result, productivity in offices and other careers could be improved as well as the economy. In conclusion, government funding should be balanced between building new facilities and preserving old ones due to its mentioned possible advantages.