Prompt: Money should be spent on creating new buildings such as museums or town halls rather than renovating the existing ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Each city has different type of buildings therein some is dilapidated and the government has spent more and more money to renovate them. However, if money spend on building of new establishments and destroying old one, it will be more profitable. Overall, I can partly agree with the topic statement because some old museums and town halls have historic value and replacing on modern buildings destroy integrity picture of history such constructions. Ċ Firstly, few people can deny the fact that all buildings eventually is eroded, and regardless that the government do they will be destroyed. Therefore, debilitated constructions, perhaps, are better demolishing for diminishing waste of money. For example, it has been noticed that the more year old constructions the less help renovating and simultaneously has more cost. Consequently, if replace such buildings on the new one it has the benefit in parts of comfortable because new facility constructs by modern material, and less need money on them. Ċ Nevertheless, many dilapidated constructions are ancient and have historic value in part of memory about our famous ancestors or the history of a city. In Poland, for instance, each city has an old centre where Town Hall was constructed with unique style, and it is simultaneously a museum, the seal of history and the place for many events. Likewise, all ancient buildings were constructed on a historically essential place, so new buildings do not have the same value for a country. Thus, the government would have to decide that constructions can demolish that is not. Ċ To conclude, each country has made own decision about existing constructions. Notwithstanding, I believe that old buildings, which is monumental, need preserve as long as it is possible that partly correspond the topic statement.