Some people think that large, impressive buildings are important for a city. Others believe that the money should be spent on improving schools and hospitals.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The architecture as a vital element of country improvement is assumed by some people. Whereas construct sorts of exciting models are crucial, others perceive that government funds should be allocated to regenerate the other establishment that can increase the quality of human's life especially in education and healthiness. I strongly believe that repairing the public facilities such as schools and hospitals will bring more benefits than build any spectacular scaffoldings.
These days an age, the unique and attractive buildings such as tower blocks are needed in several regions to represent their advanced architectures. It is important for every region since it will be their characteristic which people around the world never neglect the area. Taking Eiffel Tower in Paris as an example. It is very famous tower, so most of inhabitants around the world cannot circumvent the luxurious of Paris. A city will famous when it has an elegant landmark.
In contrast, there are many serious problems that government have to tackle. Quality of schools and hospitals is more essential to improve since it involves human rights and influences the capability of human resources. Schools as mediums of education and hospitals where people consult their health ought to obtain maximum funding from government. To illustrate, Finland has a high criterion in education system which offers remarkable services for students. As a result, the intelligent residents generate more new ideas that affect the country development. Therefore, a country has to guarantee maximally edification and healthfulness of their human resources.
All in all, whilst spectacular architecture is significant as an identity of a country, quality of public services such as hospitals and schools are more important for government, so it is acceptable to expand the money allocation for upgrading the standardization.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The architecture as a vital element of country improvement is assumed by some people. Whereas construct sorts of exciting models are crucial, others perceive that government funds should be allocated to regenerate the other establishment that can increase the quality of human's life especially in education and healthiness. I strongly believe that repairing the public facilities such as schools and hospitals will bring more benefits than build any spectacular scaffoldings.
These days an age, the unique and attractive buildings such as tower blocks are needed in several regions to represent their advanced architectures. It is important for every region since it will be their characteristic which people around the world never neglect the area. Taking Eiffel Tower in Paris as an example. It is very famous tower, so most of inhabitants around the world cannot circumvent the luxurious of Paris. A city will famous when it has an elegant landmark.
In contrast, there are many serious problems that government have to tackle. Quality of schools and hospitals is more essential to improve since it involves human rights and influences the capability of human resources. Schools as mediums of education and hospitals where people consult their health ought to obtain maximum funding from government. To illustrate, Finland has a high criterion in education system which offers remarkable services for students. As a result, the intelligent residents generate more new ideas that affect the country development. Therefore, a country has to guarantee maximally edification and healthfulness of their human resources.
All in all, whilst spectacular architecture is significant as an identity of a country, quality of public services such as hospitals and schools are more important for government, so it is acceptable to expand the money allocation for upgrading the standardization.
Do You Need