The restoration of old buildings in major cities around the world costs enormous amounts of money. This money would be better spent on providing new housing and road development.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Although proponents are of the notion that ancient buildings need bulk of funds to renovate it if instead of repairing the equal amount could be invested in enlarging upcoming infrastructure projects. I vehemently gainsay with the above assertion. Let us discuss it in detail in the subsequent paragraphs.
Fire and foremost, if the country would demolish the well-designed structures, the history of that nation would lose. To elaborate, since antiquity is one of the indispensable subjects as it serves excellent knowledge along with numerous learning's to survive in future. Not only a new generation can grab the old techniques of making elegant buildings but also get inspiration from their hard work as elderly eminent has made them manually. For instance; Dr Sigmund Freud, a renowned psychologist in his study of human behavior and cognitive skills asserted that historical frameworks served as inspiration for the younger engineers to make incredible structures following their forefather's proficiency.
Additionally, although the monuments are the cornerstone of tourism, the twofold of tourists would be discouraged in the absence of landmark buildings. To substantiate, the economy's huge earning is their globetrotters, they visit their nation to observe the famous antiques, castles and other radical designs to get new experience not only to get the idea of medieval period livelihood but also rejuvenate one's mind with peace and self-satisfaction. If the government would think to demolish ziggurats, the symbol of love and peace would also demise. To illustrate, research overseen by Oxford University over 2500 tourists, disclosed that 75% of tourism had come to perceive the history of that nation.
However, antagonists reckon that the equal amount of renovation needs to save for the application of new infrastructural projects. To explain, since the population is rising with pace, therefore want new buildings and houses for the citizens. When countries have already sufficient funds to launch new facilities, they allocate the budget separately for upcoming amenities every year. Finally, there is no requirement to destroy heritage buildings in the presence of a planned economic forecast.
To encapsulate, it can be concluded that history is paramount for every nation to learn, follow and inspiration from iconic old designs. Rather than considering them insignificant, the administrator should verify the strength of the historic buildings to provide them with a long life.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
is it worth to save those "ruins"?
Although proponents are of the notion that ancient buildings need bulk of funds to renovate it if instead of repairing the equal amount could be invested in enlarging upcoming infrastructure projects. I vehemently gainsay with the above assertion. Let us discuss it in detail in the subsequent paragraphs.
Fire and foremost, if the country would demolish the well-designed structures, the history of that nation would lose. To elaborate, since antiquity is one of the indispensable subjects as it serves excellent knowledge along with numerous learning's to survive in future. Not only a new generation can grab the old techniques of making elegant buildings but also get inspiration from their hard work as elderly eminent has made them manually. For instance; Dr Sigmund Freud, a renowned psychologist in his study of human behavior and cognitive skills asserted that historical frameworks served as inspiration for the younger engineers to make incredible structures following their forefather's proficiency.
Additionally, although the monuments are the cornerstone of tourism, the twofold of tourists would be discouraged in the absence of landmark buildings. To substantiate, the economy's huge earning is their globetrotters, they visit their nation to observe the famous antiques, castles and other radical designs to get new experience not only to get the idea of medieval period livelihood but also rejuvenate one's mind with peace and self-satisfaction. If the government would think to demolish ziggurats, the symbol of love and peace would also demise. To illustrate, research overseen by Oxford University over 2500 tourists, disclosed that 75% of tourism had come to perceive the history of that nation.
However, antagonists reckon that the equal amount of renovation needs to save for the application of new infrastructural projects. To explain, since the population is rising with pace, therefore want new buildings and houses for the citizens. When countries have already sufficient funds to launch new facilities, they allocate the budget separately for upcoming amenities every year. Finally, there is no requirement to destroy heritage buildings in the presence of a planned economic forecast.
To encapsulate, it can be concluded that history is paramount for every nation to learn, follow and inspiration from iconic old designs. Rather than considering them insignificant, the administrator should verify the strength of the historic buildings to provide them with a long life.