The debate over whether the government ought to refurbish all the 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 architectures. This essay will discuss the reasons for disagreeing with this statement before a well-founded conclusion.
Traditional buildings have their own importance. The main reason for unchanging the buildings is because of their architectural and historical importance. The old buildings demonstrate the cultural values, social norms, and traditional methods, which are imperative for the new generations and scientific research. For instance, a recent post on the New York Times, most of the historic buildings and temples of Kathmandu city are listed on the World Heritage site, portraying its importance in cultural values and in scientific research. All in all, antique temples, monuments, and buildings play a vital role in social science.
Furthermore, the second major reason is that it plays a crucial role in the tourism sector. Additionally, people find antiques more attractive. The historic buildings show traditional methods, how it was built, and what kind 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 remain as it is, all the historic buildings, due to their importance in the social science and tourism industry.