some people believe that the goverment should spend money on to creat more art, such as paintings and statues in cities to make better place to live. to what extent do you agree or disagree?

Beautifying metropolitan has become a ubiquitous presence of city councils' responsibilities.

Although

some individuals contend that cities should be as magnificent as they can be, others argue that the budget can be spent on other services

such

as improving transport modes. I partly agree with the second view. Looking at the proponent's approach

first,

what can make a town more marvellous to live in is definitely the city overlook which is seen as plenty of developed-countries' megacities by which the government would take advantage of absorbing tourists.

Furthermore

, installing splendid sculptures or constructing a myriad of monuments lets people enjoy the dwelling of the hustle and bustle of the city; meanwhile, some of these statues can present specific citizens who make the town proud through their works, services and sacrifices.

On the other hand

, based on the opponent's viewpoint, and what I agree with it is allocating

this

budget to improve slums' inhabitants' standard of living, particularly in which needy people are living under the poverty line.

Moreover

, It is noticeable to expand both public gardens and parks by purchasing nearby real states and altering them into parts of gardens.

Last

but not least, the more currency is spent on these unnecessary things, the less budget is left to build hospitals, schools and universities which seem more either productive or imperative for communities.

To conclude

, even though implementing

such

decorative things to embellish metropolises sounds like a brilliant idea, the efficiency of

this

scheme is not worth investing in as a long-term initiative.