There is a debate on whether funds should be reallocated from preserving old historical buildings to constructing new residential and commercial structures. In my perspective, constructing new buildings to serve the inhabitants advantage is necessary; however, maintaining and preserving the beauty of historical places does not outweigh it.
Specifically, there are some advantages for the season when governments need to replace old buildings with new infrastructure. Firstly, the population is growing each day so the demand for housing, offices and transportation systems play a vital role. Citizens and businesses demand infrastructure development as they pay taxes. Secondly, modernization is inevitable and old buildings are seen as obstacles to progress. For instance, Hoi An’s residents are requesting modern housing and commercial projects due to deteriorating old buildings. There are also a lot of hospitals in the country that are degrading and need to be reconstructed to serve a public purpose.
On the other hand, the preservation of old historical buildings is necessary for the value of a country. We cannot deny the contribution of old buildings to the local history and culture aspect, it provides a distinctive character. A specific example is from Hoi An’s antique houses, not only abroad visitors but also local residents are impressed by the old yellow color from the houses instead of modern buildings. It becomes a highlight in their mind. Moreover, these buildings educate future generations about history, culture, and architecture. Without the presence of it, a new gap cannot preserve it strongly. Restored historical buildings can serve as tourist attractions and promote socio – economic development. The economy of a country cannot develop if the travel aspect does not advance.
In conclusion, the need for modernization is undeniable, but preserving historical buildings has greater long – term benefits.