It is often argued that the infrastructure of old buildings and houses should be renovated to give these structures a more modern appearance. However, others believe that old buildings are part of history; therefore, they should be protected. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument. From my perspective, I strongly believe that aged construction should be renovated for safety reasons.
On the one hand, some people think that by protecting historical buildings and houses, they are also preserving their heritage. For example, if a person lives in a house which was built by their ancestors, they could be emotionally attached to the construction. Therefore, it can be challenging for that person to leave that house for all it represents. Similarly, in cities with ancient architecture that carries historical and cultural significance. By protecting those buildings, they are also protecting symbols that are considered part of the national identity of a country.
On the other hand, old buildings are more at risk of collapsing during natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. For instance, in countries were earthquakes often occur due to their location along tectonic plates edges, the structural integrity of buildings and houses building there should be strong enough to resist those scenarios because it can lead to a massive destruction of the city, putting at risk more human lives. Therefore, renovating old buildings and structures should be done for security reasons.
In conclusion, while many support preserving aged infrastructure for its historical and cultural value, I strongly believe that the safety pf citizens should be put first, necessitating the renovation of older construction.