It is argued that cutting-edge infrastructure and modern housing should replace old historic buildings in urban areas. While there may be some truth to this assertion, I firmly believe that historical monuments should be kept because of their value and economic contribution.
On the one hand, there is a clear rationale behind the view that heritage buildings in cities are no longer needed and should be knocked down. First and foremost, the demolition of historic sites allows governments to tackle the housing shortage. In densely populated areas where vacant land is rare and exorbitant, citizens often face difficulty finding a suitable place to construct their houses. Some then choose to settle in high-rise apartment blocks, which affects their overall quality of life because of their inaccessibility to larger green spaces, and the modest size of the dwelling. As a result, pulling down old historical buildings would make way for residential developments, thereby addressing the housing shortage in big cities. Moreover, if centuries-old structures are kept, there still be a need for governments to provide enough improvements or maintenance to keep them intact. This requires a significant amount of funding, which gradually leaves less room for investment in modern equipment and technology. Therefore, old historical buildings should be replaced to meet the citizens’ need for higher standard of living.
On the other hand, I would argue that historic sites should not be knocked down to make way for advanced technology in big cities. Primarily, these heritage buildings often illustrate the fascinating history of the city, making them invaluable landmarks that should not be overlooked. A prime example of this is the Tan Ky Old House in Hoi An, a centuries-old structure that showcases a unique blend of Vietnamese, Japanese, and Chinese architecture. This not only safeguards cultural identity but also attracts international historians and travelers to admire the unique beauty of this original architecture, which stimulates economic growth in the city. Furthermore, preserving old buildings is highly beneficial for the environment. Demolishing historic sites and erecting new ones from that land inevitably generates a massive amount of waste and increases carbon emissions. In contrast, maintaining existing structures helps reduce carbon footprint of the construction sector, leading to more green spaces in cities, promoting a healthier lifestyle for urban residents. By utilizing revenue from travellers and visitors to the historic sites effectively, governments can maintain the value of old buildings, as well as invest in cutting-edge equipment to ensure high-standard living for city dwellers.
In conclusion, while the arguments supporting the demolition of heritage buildings possess some validity, I firmly believe that they should be kept intact rather than being pulled down because of their timeless value and invaluable contribution to our lives as urban reéidents.