The debate over whether the government should refurbish all ancient buildings with modern buildings has always been a subject of discussion. I strongly disagree with the statement; it should be broken down and replaced with modern architecture. This essay will discuss the reasons for disagreeing with this statement before offering a well-founded conclusion.
Traditional buildings have their own importance. The main reason for not changing the buildings is their architectural and historical importance. The old buildings demonstrate the cultural values, social norms, and traditional methods, which are imperative for new generations and scientific research. For instance, a recent post in the New York Times stated that most of the historic buildings and temples of Kathmandu city are listed on the World Heritage site, portraying their importance in cultural values and in scientific research. All in all, antique temples, monuments, and buildings play a vital role in social science.
Furthermore, a second major reason is that they play a crucial role in the tourism sector. Additionally, people find antiques more attractive. The historic buildings show traditional methods, how they were built, and what kinds of materials were used, which fascinates many individuals, as it makes people travel to observe ancient things, which eventually increases the tourism sector. For example, a recent survey in Nepal reveals that many tourists came to Nepal to observe the historic buildings, temples, monuments, stupas, and more.
In conclusion, it is highly beneficial to leave all the historic buildings as they are, due to their importance in the social sciences and tourism industry.