Opinions are divided on whether old buildings should be preserved or not given the scarcity of lands. I believe that the decision on those historic constructions depends on the particular circumstances of each building.
On the one hand, buildings that are in the state of decrepit and have no practical utility should be demolished for several reasons. Chief of these is that those old buildings, which have been long obsolete and derelict, may possibly pose significant risks to dwellers living in surrounding areas. This is because there is little or no safety guarantee and maintenance, which is the primary factor of housing collapses. In addition, due to an increasing global population, the area of lands is so scant that a lot of people do not have accommodations. Consider Vietnam, one of the most populous Asian countries, where houses have been built side by side. Therefore, knocking down such old and abandoned buildings seems justified.
On the other hand, efforts should be made to preserve the historic buildings which have held historical and cultural significance for a long time. By doing this, we can maintain and perpetuate those merits, which offer valuable insights about each nation’s history and ancestors. Take, Ho Chi Minh’ house, for example, which is not so unique about architecture but is lastingly preserved due to being a place for venerating the revered hero of Vietnam. Another reason is that some old buildings are known as tourist attractions, which appeal thousands of visitors every year. Therefore, tourism industry can capitalize on such constructions, which can not only provide historical lessons but also promote the diversity of ethnics value for foreigners.
In conclusion, although there are some buildings that should be kept for their cultural and historical values, others should be supplanted by housing and developments