It is always believed in some communities that certain old buildings worthier for preserving, compared to other ones, however many people argues that all the buildings worth to be preserved equally. From my perspective worthiness depends on the construction’s heritage not as much as on it’s effectiveness and productivity. This essay will discuss both opinions and provide a conclusion based on the previous arguments.
On the one hand, properties that were built in 19th and 20th centuries may contain a huge amount of memories strongly linked with a lifestyles, traditions and societies of their time. Protecting elder buildings is beneficial for all people, especially for younger generations, due to the fact that most of children and adolescents don’t pay enough attention on the nation’s history and culture.
On the other hand, lots of golden age buildings are useless and just borrowing enormous amounts of overall territories. Nevertheless, government still demolishes apartment blocks and empty private properties that can bring numbers of benefits and may used for many purposes. For example, those buildings have potential in different spheres such as affordable housing, community centers, art studios, or even urban gardens. Reusing abandoned constructions lead to sustainable development and gives local community what they needs.
Additionally, preserving every old building may seem unnecessary when museums and historical sites serve cultural education. Taking off outdated structures can make space for modern needs, fostering community growth. While valuing history, redirecting resources towards dynamic spaces ensures cultural education evolves, achieving a balance between preserving heritage and meeting contemporary requirements.
In conclusion, it is unnecessary to save old constructions by virtue of the fact that replacing then with a modern places will bring incredible benefits for both country and people.