In today’s modern world new accomodation and urban institutions are being built replacing the old ones. This generates a debate of whether we should maintain the older structure of cities or not. In this essay, I will explore both sides and lean towards a neutral view.
Advocates for modern unbanizations argue about the neccesity of repairing and rebuilding old houses into new accomodations as a mean of reducing house malfunctioning problems. This can be often seen in cities with houses that were constructed more than 100 years ago and that have not underwent proper maintenance. For example, house owners and tenants complain about frequent plumbing issues or damaged walls, which repairing costs are extremely high and generally do not last long. As a consequence, proponents of this view assert that to build modern accommodations is more beneficial long-term.
On the contrary, critics defend the importance of keeping the local aesthetics of the cities, especially those areas with cultural heritage. Many urban and rural spaces are well-known for their buildings and archictecture, which foster cultural attractions for tourists. For that reason it is critical to maintain the old-fashion style of housing as it will bring financial profit for the area.
Personally, I hold the view that both sides should be taken into consideration depending on the situation of the neighborhood. I strongly believe that houses should be repair to avoid problems, although all these installations can be made by maintaining the original form of the house. Moreover, when choosing a modern or previous style, individuals can always keep in mind the situation of the area they live in and how these changes will affect the community.
In conclusion, differents perspectives are hold about this issue, with boths sides having consistent arguments. From my point of view, it is fundamental to enhance the cultural aspects of cities as well as maintaning up-to-date installations.