As more and more skyscrapers are constructed in many hundreds of metropolitan cities, some might claim that the role of such buildings is of great importance to every citizen, while other people argue that the money for those iconic sculptures should go to more vital public services. Personally, I tend to agree with the latter view and I will explain why in this essay.
On the one hand, the supporters of large, impressive buildings point out that most high-rise buildings are beneficial to an urban area in terms of economic growth and tourism. It is true that land resource in many modern inner-cities, such as Tokyo or Seoul, is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive, and tall remarkable buildings appear to be the best solution in these circumstances. On the tourist level, the outstanding architecture and unique design of huge municipal buildings indeed greatly contribute to the income of a city. Some of them even become a landmark where thousands of tourists pay a visit and spend money on services provided by those buildings.
On the other hand, those who oppose constructing these huge architectures for one conurbation highlight that the budget should go to other services that have direct impacts on local citizens on a daily basis such as schools or hospitals. By allocating money into important public sectors, local councils can assure greater access to such services for all members of society while building iconic landmarks superficially impresses tourists only. For instance, if there is an outbreak of deadly diseases or natural catastrophes, the work of many paramedics and health care providers will be what humans suffering from those situations truly need, not large stunning high-rises.
In conclusion, the addition of gigantic, attractive buildings to a city could definitely amaze the rest of the world, but it seems to me that municipal budget should be allocated to medical treatments and educational institutes first.
As more and more skyscrapers
are constructed
in
many
hundreds of metropolitan cities,
some
might claim that the role of such
buildings
is of great importance to every citizen, while other
people
argue that the money for those iconic sculptures should go to more vital public
services
.
Personally
, I tend to
agree
with the latter view and I will
explain
why in this essay.
On the one hand, the supporters of large, impressive
buildings
point out that most high-rise
buildings
are beneficial to an urban area in terms of economic growth and tourism. It is true that land resource in
many
modern inner-cities, such as Tokyo or Seoul, is becoming
increasingly
scarce and expensive, and tall remarkable
buildings
appear to be the best solution in these circumstances. On the tourist level, the outstanding architecture and unique design of huge municipal
buildings
indeed
greatly
contribute to the income of a city.
Some
of them even become a landmark where thousands of tourists pay a visit and spend money on
services
provided by those buildings.
On the other hand
, those who oppose constructing these huge architectures for one conurbation highlight that the budget should go to other
services
that have direct impacts on local citizens on a daily basis such as schools or hospitals. By allocating money into
important
public sectors, local councils can assure greater access to such
services
for all members of society while
building
iconic landmarks
superficially
impresses tourists
only
.
For instance
, if there is an outbreak of deadly diseases or natural catastrophes, the work of
many
paramedics and health care providers will be what humans suffering from those situations
truly
need, not large stunning high-rises.
In conclusion
, the addition of gigantic, attractive
buildings
to a city could definitely amaze the rest of the world,
but
it seems to me that municipal budget should
be allocated
to medical treatments and educational institutes
first
.