Cities worldwide were built decades, even centuries ago, which is why so many have old and historic buildings. Debates have emerged regarding whether a city should try to preserve or destroy said buildings and replace them with modern ones. Factors such as safety, the cost of maintenance, and colonialism should be considered when making this decision.
Initially, some of the old buildings around a city predate even the current citizens of the town. To illustrate, the Prambanan Temple was destroyed during the earthquake in Yogyakarta in 2006. Because of the age of these old buildings, some are too dangerous to keep around because they could cause serious damage. To prevent this, the preservation of old buildings is needed.
Moreover, the maintenance of ancient buildings should be a top priority, considering the expensive cost. For instance, Monumen Nasional in Jakarta receives yearly maintenance for a substantial amount of money. When considering the maintenance costs, it might be better to destroy and replace the old buildings with new ones. To add more to that, most of the time ancient buildings were built when the city’s citizens had no control over the city.
Notably, historic buildings tend to be built when a city is still under colonization, which impacts them with outside influences. Kota Tua in West Jakarta is a great example of this. People can see that the buildings have a great influence on Dutch colonialism. The government should consider destroying these historic buildings and building something new.
To conclude, a city should destroy antique buildings and replace them with new ones because they are too old and dangerous to keep around. Maintenance of the buildings is needed, but considering the cost, it’s better just to destroy and build a new one. Lastly, antique buildings have a heavy colonialism influence. It’s better for a city to build a new one so that the city has something for and from themselves.