Too much is spent on looking after repairing old buildings. Do you agree or disagree?

It has always been a controversial topic whether an ancient historical property should be renovated or not as it costs a huge amount of fund. I have a mixed notion about the statement. This essay will discuss both sides with some relevant examples. On the one hand, heritage buildings are of great importance as these are the symbols of the culture and olden memories of any country. Therefore, the government and citizens are equally responsible to make efforts to keep their golden property safe and intact. For instance, the Taj Mahal, a popular tourist place in India, is also a famous historical monument and one of the seven wonders, a symbol of love of the Mughal Emperor Akbar and her beloved wife queen Jodha. The state spent larger portion of money on regular basis just to ensure that it has not lost its originality and always resembles the same as it was in the old times. On the flip side, some people argue that spending an enormous amount on repairing the old buildings is a total wastage of public fund. To illustrate, if the property is too old and badly damaged to be repaired or after repairing also the same does not look like what it was before, then all is vain. Instead of fixing old buildings, the government should utilise that money for the betterment of the nation. For example, by constructing new educational institutes, medical centres the state can benefit to all residents as well as the country. To recapitulate, after discussing both points, I strongly advocate that the golden heritage should be protected and repaired unless the same shows its uniqueness and importance after renovated. However, the constructions of other public places are equally significant for a nation.