The government should regulate new developments, and the authorities have a responsibility to protect important heritage buildings in Vietnam. Do you agree?

In the modern era, people are more keen on something new and updated so the issue that whether the government should restore old buildings or not has sparked a heated debate. In Viet Nam, some individuals believe that the authorities ought to be in charge of preserving the heritage buildings, whereas others say that it is important to construct advanced roads and other structures. From my opinion, I partially agree with the idea. In this essay, I will give some arguments in favor to support my opinion. From an overall perspective, there are two main reasons why I reckon that the ancient buildings should be protected in Vietnam. Perhaps the main reason is that they are being replaced by a thousand of modern towers for commercial purpose. To illustrate, because of catching up with the contemporary lifestyle, the government seem to more concentrate on outstanding construction to show that the country are rich, enhancing and deserved to receive the investment from others. That is the reason why there are many heritage buildings in their deaths due to the value of history that they have. Thus, it is essential to conserver these buildings so they will be an educational resources which are aimed for the future generations. Children will be enabled to learn about their past such as what trend their cities went through or what their lifestyle was affected by. In addition, the historic buildings has the ability of tourist attractions. In these days, a number of visitors are interested in something date back so they will be more excited to pay a visit to this types of buildings, which are considered to be one of the vital symbols of each city or country. This has led to the authorities should be responsible for keeping those buildings in safe. On the other hand, I would argue that the government ought not to spend fully funds on renovating the old buildings if they are hardly demolished by natural reasons. First and foremost, in the past, people did not have reinforced concrete in the comparison to what they have nowadays, some of buildings made from wood so they will be rotten because they have survived from amount of impacts of nature. As a result, allowing them to stay in their dilapidated state poses a serious threat to life and property. Moreover, that also wastes of public money without any effective results. Instead of renewing them, the government prefer to construct new infrastructure which meets the need of citizens. For example, there will be more road are built to deal with traffic congestion or more advance buildings will be in use to provide more job prospects. Secondly, the heritage buildings could not be a remarkable point for tourism industry if all buildings had the same structure. This results in the boredom of travelers who witness the same kind of houses in an area. In conclusion, protecting the cultural building is very important to maintain the historic buildings. However, it is not necessary to do it regardless any consequences. In my opinion, the authorities should focus on the old buildings which can show clearly the special traditions of a region. If the government implements this policy, it will provide a better opportunity for national tourism and an excellent education methods to teach students about the history.