There is a controversial debate going on among people about whether a new architectural building should take over an old construction or whether these ancient buildings need to be protected. I think it is best to protect old buildings and homes because of personal and historical purposes.
Old buildings are at more risk of collapse during natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and wind storms. For instance, many western countries are residing on sea level , where there is a major risk of facing frequent floods and strong wind gusts. So, if buildings are not strong enough to deal with these weather conditions , it can lead to destruction of ancient constructions ,putting thousands of lives at risk. Thus, old buildings should be replaced with more sustainable infrastructure and technological advances.
Many people prefer to live in their old homes to protect their heritage houses and memories. For instance, if a person is living in a house which was built by their ancestors , there could be an emotional connection attached with it. Therefore, the thought of letting go of those precious memories can be quite challenging for anyone. Similarly , many old buildings in cities represent the history of their culture and heritage. Thus, protecting old buildings as a part of cultural symbols should be considered as a citizen of the country.
In conclusion, replacement of older infrastructure can be a bit problematic during natural events but it can be tackled down with other modern technologies. However, I think any country’s cultural representation and family home ties can not be negotiated over anything. Thus, I believe that old homes and buildings should be protected.