Some people think that the government should preserve old buildings such as art galleries, public halls etc. But there are some people who argue with this. Discussion both these views and give your opinion.

A section of the society believes that it is not significant for the government to properly maintain the condition of ancient buildings, while there are others who disagree with this notion. I opine that the government should preserve the ancient constructions. Ideas articulated further in this discourse will discuss both these viewspoints. People think that replenishig the old buildings is not necessary, based on the factors such as time and money. It requires a lot of time to renew ancient buildings, and also the cost involved would be obviously high. For example, cost of the construction materials nowadays are at peak when compared to the material cost during the ancient times. Hence, people seem to be convinced with the fact that it is better to construct a new building instead of waiting money on the old ones. However, there are a few advantages of renovating the historical buildings which outweighs the advantages associated with demolishing them. These historical buildings paves way for the future generations to gain knowledge about the technological advancement of our ancestors in architecture. For example, Taj Mahal in India, which is one of the 7 wonders of the world, still holds a high value for it's architecture. Similarly, the construction of Pyramids are still an unsolved mystery, which clearly depicts the importance of architectural. By renovating these buildings, our generations can learn about the architecture in the past which makes them more creative and innovative in the future. To conclude, I would like to reiterate the fact that the government it is essential for the government to replenish and renovate these historical buildings instead of building new ones by destroying them.