It is important that we maintain and protect the beautiful buildings of the past, even if it is expensive for countries to do so. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Sample 1:

It is often pointed out that historical buildings are valuable treasures for a country and should be preserved even if the government needs to spend hefty amounts on them. I completely agree with this viewpoint, and my position is outlined in this essay.

First of all, old and traditional buildings are of great architectural importance. Their sublime design attracts tourists and locals alike and is quite rare in modern structures. These historical edifices also give us an opportunity to learn about the glorious past. For example, the Roman Colosseum in Rome not only shows how awe-inspiring the ancient architectural designs were but also points out a massive arena used as a stadium for gladiators' fighting and has space to house around 50,000 spectators in tiered seating. This structure is a predominant representative of Roman culture and civilisation that modern historians cherish profoundly.

In addition to this, historical monuments also serve as tourist magnetism in many countries. In today's world, many people plan their vacations in places of historical importance as they are curious to know more about the culture and traditions of the past. Many nations benefit from these tourists, and as a result, they possess a booming tourism industry. For instance, millions of tourists including international tourists visit the Taj Mahal in India every year. This provides the government with a huge profit and also employs many locals, thus assisting the government financially.

To conclude, I believe, it is worth spending money on ancient buildings as they not only possess historical importance but also a financial kernel for many governments.

Sample 2:

Old historic edifices not only imprint past architectural styles and craftsmanship, but they often are also aesthetically appealing and attract tourists in great numbers. This is why some advocate protecting such structures even if it means an extra budget for the authority. I am also in favour of protecting and preserving such buildings and this essay explains why.

First of all, old structures have history and stories ingrained in them. Demolishing them will erase a great part of the history associated with them. They also are the hallmark of a nation's past glory and success. For instance, whenever we think about Rome, the Colosseum comes to our mind rather than its modern buildings. Now, if the Italian government decides to diminish this historic structure, that would be a blunder. It would not only obliterate its national history but also diminish the great potential to attract a huge number of tourists who visit Rome.

Most old buildings are aesthetically delightful and have fabulous designs. Unlike modern buildings - which are primarily built to accommodate more people or businesses, those old buildings give an impression of freedom in design, and they also are living proof of old technology that was applied to erect those establishments. The nations should conserve those buildings for both aesthetic purposes and to save the technology behind them. Finally, with the help of modern design materials and techniques, retouching and refurbishing those buildings to give them more stability and durability has become easier and comparatively cheaper. This is another reason authorities should think twice before deciding to demolish an old and beautiful building. 

In conclusion, beautiful and old buildings are important for attracting tourists, preserving design diversity and technology as well as protecting the history associated with them. This is why it is expected that authorities distinguish such buildings and take the initiative to protect them.

Sample 3:

Many old buildings contain historic significance and preserving important ones is necessary. However, protecting every old structure just for aesthetic reasons is not practical, especially at a time when the housing crisis is soaring all around the world. This essay explains why I believe that protecting and conserving all old beautiful buildings is a burden for a nation. 

The global population has reached a staggeringly high of 8 billion which was just 2 billion a century ago. With this dramatic rise in population, the housing problem has intensified and if old buildings do not make space for tall, modern and more frugal structures, we will soon be destroying all of our farmlands and forests to make new houses. This will lead to a disastrous situation as we already are losing agricultural lands and forests at an alarming rate. Modern buildings are meant to accommodate a large number of people, sometimes a modern skyscraper can accommodate thousands of people while most ancient structures were built to accommodate at best a large family. The designs were made in the last century when space was abundant. This is no longer practical at all to preserve those old buildings just because they are lovely to look at.

Moreover, maintaining and preserving old structures requires a large sum of money. They were built using traditional materials and techniques, and this is why renovating them requires intensive labour and money. On top of that, each government has a list of historically significant buildings and structures that they vigorously preserve and renovate. The authorities are not going to just demolish structures like the Taj Mahal or the Acropolis of Athens, and they are going to get budget and effort no matter what. Now including all old buildings in this must-preserve list is going to be a colossal burden if not an impossible act.

In conclusion, old and gorgeous-looking buildings that are century old should be replaced by modern and space-frugal buildings while significantly important historic buildings should be preserved. This way we will have the housing crisis in check while also preserving important history.

Sample 4:

The beauty of historical architecture is not just a testament to the skill and artistry of our ancestors, but it also provides a link to our cultural heritage. While it may be expensive to maintain and preserve these buildings, it is absolutely essential that we do so. I strongly agree with the statement that it is necessary to preserve and protect the attractive structures of the past.

Firstly, historical buildings represent a valuable connection to our cultural heritage. These structures are often integral to the identity of a city or region, and can provide insight into the history, culture, and traditions of a particular place. In some cases, they may be the only tangible link to a particular period of history, making them all the more important to preserve.

Moreover, historical buildings often have significant aesthetic and architectural value. They represent the epitome of design and craftsmanship of the era in which they were built and are irreplaceable in their beauty and elegance. Once lost, it is impossible to recreate the same level of artistry and skill that went into their creation. Preserving these buildings, therefore, is not just a matter of maintaining a connection to our cultural past, but it is also an investment in the future.

Finally, historical buildings can also have significant economic value. They often become tourist attractions, drawing visitors from around the world who appreciate their historical and architectural significance. This can provide a significant boost to the local economy, creating jobs and generating revenue for local businesses. In addition, preserving historical buildings can also be a way to regenerate or revitalize urban areas, bringing new life to previously neglected parts of a city.

In conclusion, maintaining and protecting historical buildings is essential to preserving our cultural heritage, promoting aesthetic and architectural values, and boosting local economies. While the cost of preserving these buildings can be high, the benefits are far greater. It is our duty to ensure that these irreplaceable treasures are passed on to future generations.

Sample 5:

In today's world, countries are facing many pressing issues such as poverty, climate change, and healthcare. Given these urgent concerns, the notion that we should prioritize spending on maintaining and protecting historical buildings, even if it is expensive, seems misguided. In this essay, I will explain why I disagree with the statement that it is important to conserve and protect historical buildings.

Firstly, it is vital to recognize that maintaining historical buildings is a costly undertaking. Governments must allocate significant resources and funds to upkeep such buildings, which could otherwise be invested in other pressing social and economic needs. It is often argued that such buildings attract tourists and generate revenue, which is important for the economy. However, it is important to consider that this revenue is often not enough to cover the costs of maintaining and protecting these buildings.

Secondly, focusing too much on preserving the past can divert attention from the more urgent issues facing society today. While historical buildings may be attractive and significant, they do not address the pressing concerns of modern times, such as poverty and climate change. Governments should focus on addressing these issues rather than spending time and money preserving the past.

Lastly, we should also consider that not all historical buildings are worth preserving. Some buildings have significant cultural and historical value, while others may not. In fact, some historical buildings may even represent a painful legacy of colonialism, slavery, or other forms of oppression. It is important for societies to critically examine the value and significance of historical buildings before investing resources in their preservation.

In conclusion, while historical buildings may hold cultural and historical value, I disagree with the idea that it is essential to maintain and protect them, even if it is expensive. In a world facing numerous pressing issues, governments must prioritize spending on urgent needs such as poverty reduction and climate change rather than investing in preserving the past.

Sample 6:

Along with the development of society, there is an increasing number of issues brought into consideration, one of which is the conservation of beautiful historical architectures. There emerges a standpoint favoring the significance of such activities, despite colossal expenses for countries incurred from those processes in many cases. This essay's aim is to provide a personal position in consensus with the mentioned belief and appropriate reasons.

First, buildings of the past represent the historical values of a country. Architecture design is one of the aspects of a nation's cultural identities, as the buildings reflect the cultural quintessence of people in a certain historical period. Such beautiful architectures serve as objects for historians worldwide. Therefore, people should preserve and renovate historical buildings, for the next generations to visit and learn about the history. Moreover, architectures may be icons for people to recognize a nation. For example, whenever people see the Colosseum, they immediately remember Italy; and One-pillar Pagoda is globally recognized as Vietnam's symbol.

Second, buildings of the past are possibly boosters of a country's tourism industry. Because of the historical importance and beauty of ancient architectures, tourists and researchers around the world may flock to those sites to visit and explore. Such activities contribute to increasing the rate of tourists of a nation.

Nevertheless, the maintenance of historical architectures may not be one of the paramount obligations of some countries, especially those with economic difficulties. As protecting the buildings may require an enormous amount of money, those nations with low financial backgrounds cannot afford the expenses.

Briefly, historical buildings are invaluable assets of a country, people should maintain and preserve them as a part of their cultural identities. However, every coin has two sides, in some cases, the inability of spending money on protecting ancient architectures of countries with financial difficulties should have sympathized.