In the present-day, some people think old buildings should be replaced with the new buildings, but others believe that old buildings should be protected by law. In this essay, we will compare both points of view. As I thought, old buildings are not replaced, because they show our cultural heritage, craftsmanship and people want to visit that places.
Firstly, historical buildings has its own significance, I believe that, they show our cultural heritage, how our ancestors live their life. They also show its material and craftsmanship. They grab many tourists every year to visit and explore their and other countries cultures. They will help to increase their economic growth. For instance, if we look, Pakistan northern areas are more attractive for the tourists, many national and international tourists visit them and explore the culture of Pakistan. To conclude that, old buildings should not be replaced, because they help to increase economic growth of a country.
On the one hand, some people think old buildings should replaced with new ones. They think with increasing population, they replaced into offices and hotels. The expenses of renovations are high as compare to old buildings. For example, Qaddafi Stadium in Pakistan were built in 1959, but in 2024 they are replaced into new buildings, but its historical features are retaining. As a result, old buildings are replaced, but their historical features are retaining.
To sum up, old buildings show a cultural heritage, they increase economy, tourists are visits here, that help to boost employment. Some person thought, old buildings replaced for peoples needs. In my opinion, benefits of old buildings are more as far as modernization.