Nowadays, many cities have begun to destroy or replace historical buildings. However, I don’t agree to cause damage to them, because historical property can bring a couple of benefits to society. Overall, cultural value for visitors and generations is also driving economic benefits for local areas.
One major reason was that acres appear a cultural identity, to show the style of the cities, history, and significant events from different periods of history. If cities destroyed them, any kind of building can replace their role. For example, in European cities, such as Roma can bring a lot of attention to the historical building by visitors. Therefore, preserving old architecture identify for the cultural generation.
There is also a strong argument for preserving architecture. Tourism is the largest industry in the world, and travellers choose their destination based on their cultural and historical attractions. There is evidence that preserving old buildings in museums is a good option, because it still protects heritage, aslo can also support local communities. In contrast, removing structure might cause a lot of energy and produce environmental waste for cities. Additionally, historical structure plays a lot of role in cities.
In conclusion, cities should be protecting historical buildings, because it allows economic value, offer long term economic benefits.