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.
If the people are asked to mention a thing about Paris, Italy, and Dubai, what will they tell about? Probably most of them will give the same answers. As we know, those countries are so popular because of having an iconic building that makes them special from others. Paris has Eiffel Tower which known by the couples in the world as a symbol of romance. Italy has Pisa Tower which is looked slanting and be famous because of its unique architecture. Then what country has the highest skycraper on the earth? Of course, that is Dubai with its Burj Khalifa!
In my view, I agree that an impressive building is one of the important things that should be exist in every city and can be an identity of the city. However, it does not mean that it must be large, high, expensive, and sophisticated. The main point is how that construction can show the local wisdom and the culture of the city.
Indonesia, for example, consists of diverse cultures and has the unique features in every region. We can see 'Rumah Gadang' in Padang, 'Borobudur Temple' -that had been awarded as one of the seven wonders in the world- in Yogyakarta, 'Rumah Honai' -the indigenous' house- in Papua, and so on. Government should not spend much money to build a new one. They can utilize the old building and do some improvements to make it better. If it can be a tourist attraction, it will give a benefit in tourism that increase the local economy.
Finally, it depends on the need of a country. Therefore, instead of spending much money to make a majestic building, it will be better if the government can manage the finance wisely by giving more priority to the other urgent things such us developing the schools and health service centres.