Restoration of old buildings in main cities involves enormous government expenditure

Do We Need Historical Building Restoration?

As time goes by, along with the degradation of historic structure, a hotly-debated issue of whether we should spend the state budget for the repairment of these buildings or should leave them being gradually eroded over time and allocate money to the construction of new infrastructure and hall of residence instead has been raised. This essay will examine the rationale behind each viewpoint to assert my strong agreement for the first perspective.

Firstly, spending for more infrastructure being installed is necessary since this results in a more relaxing standard of living. Their utilitarian advantages in turn helps relieve the inexplicable issue caused by the rapidly increasing population regarding the lack of accommodation in developing countries. This can be seen in the way that the Chinese government practically overlook their historic features to make room for further improvement in their infrastructure. Moreover, newly-constructed venues undoubtedly play a decisive role in attracting both overseas and domestic tourists, driving them to pay a visit to the attractions. And tourism occupied a large proportion of the total gross domestic product of a country. Thereby, the installation of new infrastructure may help improve both the local and national economy.

Yet it is not the case for developed ones which have a moderate population while still having a well-rounded economy. Not suffering from overcrowded populations, these countries have financial means to allocate money to the repairment of historic buildings in order to preserve the previous generations' legacies and a great deal of historically important information contained in those buildings. By keeping and deciphering historical structure, parts of our history can be revealed. One way in which a country can benefit from these old, precious structures in parallel with their conservation is that they should be used as tourist attractions. This is realistically proven in most of European countries for taking advantage from historical attractions, namely the inclined tower in Italy or the Masada national park in Israel.

In essence, despite the utilitarian advantages of newly-built infrastructure, nothing is more important than the historical value and identity of a country, hence, the national budget should be shared for the restoration of damaged historic sites.

Did you remember to time yourself when you wrote this task? It appears that you have used as much intermediate to advanced English wording in this essay. That is good for your LR score, but nothing else. The excessive use of words to explain ideas that could have been done quickly using simpler terms and direct sentences brought down your LR and GRA scores. You have also missed out on actually proving your correct English writing skills. Your desire to use more vocabulary instead of writing the proper mix of simple, complex, and compound sentences have resulted in difficult to follow ideas and explanations. For the task 2 essay, you just have to keep it simple. A simple explanation will get a better score than a vocabulary exercise.