▶ Your Answer :
Some people say that the
governments should spend money to construct new housing because the number of
people is increasing these days. However, I am certain that the governments
have to spend their money to maintain historic or traditional buildings. There
are two reasons why I feel this way. One reason for my argument is that existing
historical building can be valuable legacy in the future. The other reason is
that constructing new housing can waste of money.
First of all, existing historic or
traditional buildings can be precious heritage in the future. For example, the
Kyoung-bok Palace which is the most popular traditional building in South Korea
was constructed in the early 12th century. Many people not only Korean but also
foreigners go to the palace for sightseeing. As time goes by, more and more
people would come to the place where historic buildings are located. Therefore,
it makes sense to say that it is better for governments to spend money to
conserve traditional buildings.
Moreover, spending budget to build
new housing could be wasteful of the budget. To be specific, if new housing
will not sell or rent, the housing could be existed empty space. There is no
doubt that the governments will have a budget deficit. For instance, Song-do
city, the new housing had built in South Korea, was very popular to invest
personal money to build the housing at first time, but only very few people
lived there and many houses were remained vacancy. The city has been existed
like ‘ghost city’. Therefore, I am sure that the governments spend their money
to maintain historic buildings than to build new housing.
In conclusion, not only for the
future but also for the saving money, I strongly agree with the statement that
it is better way for the governments to spend money to keep historic or
traditional buildings that to construct new housing.
|