There is an ongoing issue that replacing old constrution to more modern buildings in cities will be a good method in the future, while some people opine that we should preserve these old buildings. Let us examine both views before reaching a concrete decision.
On the one hand, having converted old constructions might an efficient scheme that atract more residents to the cities especially tourists, along with boosting the tourism become better. This is because the scene of the cities at the present day which is crucial to the sense of relaxation and enjoyment of each inviduals, thus the departments or facilites having responsibilities for doing this campaign should do it logically. Additionally, due to replacing old buildings should prevent residents of the cities from low-quality materials of old buildings.
On the other hand, more old buildings saving, more historical evidence existed for the next generation; some old constructions have significantly traditional values that shall bring much more knowledge for the youth. As the result, more residents will tend to protect buildings or change these to a blend of old and modern ones. In some developed countries, government still keeps outdate constructions, they only demolish which is not good enough and become risky for their citizens in the cities. Moreover, these buildings also have tourism value that can bring some comercial breakthroughs to this city.
To sum up, both views have its merits and detrimental sides. For me, replacing old constructions by new ones is better for both residents and governments, it will be an inevitable thing for many outdate cities in the technology era. Due to the modifications of the infrastructure, the standard of living is positively going to the legitimate accomodation to live in.