It is believed that, some old architecture should be cared and preserved better than others. Personally, I fully agree, as while some buildings represent the history of culture and also have some financial benefits, others just made the surrounding area look undeveloped.
Even though, some old buildings have historical importance, they sometimes spoil the outlook of the area that they are in. Some buildings just do not match up with other more modern buildings nearby, as they are too old or are in bad conditions, which make them unattractive. Even small buildings turn the outlook of good neighborhoods into slum-like area. As an example, in some Arabic countries there are old wells and temples that even though are historical heritages, they just look as ruins.
However, prehistorical buildings, such as cathedrals all over the Europe or pyramids in Egypt should be preserved, because they hold historical importance, and match up with other buildings in cities or areas that they are located in. These buildings have deep background and should be cared properly.
In addition, the preservation of this buildings is an investment for country’s economy. By preserving the historical buildings, the number of tourists who visit the country to see the sights grows, as beautiful buildings that are preserved and are in good conditions are loved by foreign people. By attracting visitors, is the economy improves, which is a huge financial benefit for the country. For example, the Eiffel tower in France brings around 500,000 tourists annually,and millions of dollars in profit.
In conclusion, most old buildings that have a historical background and attract tourists should be preserved, but those that are in harsh conditions and destroy the beauty of surrounding area should be diminished.