In recent years, people believed old buildings should be protected or replaced with modern structures. In my opinion,old buildings should be replaced with more modern structures because this would improve the quality and maintenance of the buildings.
The main reason, some people argue, is that old buildings are harder and more expensive to maintain because they don’t meet modern standards such as fire proof and earthquake resistance. Therefore, replacing old buildings with new ones would create safetyness, more space and modernity.
In contrast, preserving old buildings has meaning in the past. Historical buildings reflect the culture, traditions and architecture types in the past. These attract tourists which boost the country’s economy. For example, countries such as Rome and Switzerland gain economic benefits from visitors visiting ancient structures. Additionally, the details of old structures have unique designs that are difficult to replicate in today’s world.
In my opinion, keeping historical structure is important but not all of them are. The government should know its historical value. If the building has meaning and culture then it should not be replaced. Therefore, if the old building has no more value and meaning, replacing it with a newer one is considerable.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that old buildings or replacing modern structures both have an advantage. However keeping old and meaning full structure should be kept while the less meaningful one should be replaced.