Too much money is spent looking after and repairing old buildings. We should knock them down and build modern ones instead. Do you agree or disagree?

Most governments are faced with the dilemma of whether to spend a huge amount of money protecting old buildings or simply knock them down. In my opinion, whether an old building should be torn down and make way for a new one mainly depends on its value in terms of art and history. On the one hand, it is not wise for the government to invest financial and other resources in protecting some valueless old buildings in spite of their centurial existence. If a house or tower closely resembles hundreds of other buildings in terms of design and function, then it would be a waste of money to keep it alive. The government instead should consider making space for modern buildings, especially those high-rise ones, which will be followed by a range of benefits, such as increasing affordable housing supply and improving living conditions. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly worthwhile to preserve buildings with historic and artistic meanings even at a significant cost. The first reason is that these buildings attract people from domestic cities and all over the world. Whether the feeling is patriotic or exotic, visitors to these meaningful sites can be spiritually satisfied and at the same time make economic contributions to the city. In addition, today's designers may be able to learn from some creatively designed and well erected buildings. For example, a century-old mansion may be a textbook teaching modern developers how to construct houses that could withstand the fiercest of hurricane. In conclusion, I do not agree that all old buildings should be demolished without taking their unique meanings into consideration. Culturally and historically valuable  old architectural works are worth preserving and protecting.