Some people believe that it is the duty of city authorities to have cultural attractions such as museums and art galleries others believe that this is a waste of money, and the focus should be on providing an effective infrastructure and efficient service

The distribution of city money problem concerns many people. Some of them think that city authorities have to think about cultural attractions such as galleries and museums. Others suggest to focus more on practical things such as infrastructure, efficient services. It is worth to analyzing both sides.

First of all people's cultural attractions show the maturity of nation. We see that the more the environment in culture is developed the more people are versatile. I agree with that statement, because attractions such museums and cinemas are developing people's intellect and making them more art. For example talented people such Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and others grown in times when culture was developed.

The development of culture is not so important, than providing and effective infrastructure, because the first doesn't make city more independent than the second. Many people investors and businessmen would not choose city with weak economy system. Also developed services as transport, communication and others make people's life more comfortable. Although people like a developed culture, they would still prefer a city with a developed infrastructure. For instance we could take old Italy and high technology Japan.

From my point of view we should find a middle of them, because one of them saturates and other increases the standard of living. In conclusion, it is worth to focus both of them, but maybe by a ratio of 3 to 1 in favor of infrastructure.