One school of thought holds that due to a colossal amount of money channelled into the repairment of old buildings, these should be destroyed in favour of modern ones. From my perspective, I partially concur with this opinion, and this essay will illustrate my viewpoint.
On the one hand, that modern complexes take the place of old ones is conducive to both citizens and the society. On the individual level, the reduced quality of lives resulting from living in degraded houses may pose a grave threat to residents, specifically leading to serious ailments, namely cancer. However, such possible detrimental health-related problems can be alleviated if people relocate to newly built complexes. On the societal level, since it has become increasingly common for the construction of modern houses, old ones are gradually outdated. In that sense, only when all buildings follow a contemporary trend can uniformity be achieved in the city, thereby enhancing its overall aesthetic value.
On the other hand, ancient buildings still play a key role in cultural as well as economic aspects. To clarify, as old buildings have stood the test of time, these offer an unparalleled cultural value, giving contemporary citizens an insight into the past. Additionally, the reduced number of ancient buildings acquired from the erection of modern ones render such old sites rare, allowing them to become appealing attractions. The implication of this is that cities can make more tourist revenue, which can be utilized to subsidize not only the repairment of historical sites, but also other sectors.
In conclusion, I would contend that while modern complexes are advantageous to the residents as well as the society, historical buildings present benefits in terms of culture and the economy. Therefore, stakeholders should take the merits of both sides into consideration before carrying out any actions.