The restoration of old buildings in major cities in the world costs numerous governments' expenditures. This money should be used in new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.2

The development of modern buildings and pathways is immensely important, yet it generates arguments about whether the ancient ones should not be reconstructed. Thousands of these buildings are being destroyed to make space for the more functional ones. Personally, I think this action should be ceased. The intention of urbanization is upstanding: it is built to be mostly beneficial for people’s lives. Modern buildings are simpler and cheaper to construct as they would not require such sophistication compare to ancient buildings. Indeed, these buildings are more multifunctional, like a skyscraper can be an accommodation, workplace and a supermarket; which will reduce a lot of space within an overcrowded city. Furthermore, new pathways can withstand a significantly larger amount of transportations, preventing traffic congestions and time consumption. However, old buildings define a nation’s cultural aspects, and must not be neglected by this vision. The ancient construction is a meticulous work of creativity and time, and an inspiration towards the city’s civilians. Moreover, despite the cost of restoration, these buildings can attract tourists, which is advantageous for the economy of a country. When a meaningful historical construction is widely publicized, individuals from all over the world would surge to it. For instance, the Notre Dame of Paris is reconstructed because it reflects such a powerful aspect of culture, and also a foundation for tourism. Needless to say, these buildings are greatly important to both the economic and social facet. In a nutshell, I conceive that the conservation of ancient construction is crucial, and should not be destroyed for urbanization.