In recent years there has been much of a discussion about historical buildings. Many argue that some new houses and offices should be built, in place of the old ones, while others believe that they have to be protected. In my view, old buildings should be preserved, but I will also discuss the opposite argument in this essay.
On the one hand, nowadys modern skyscrapers are safer and more practical. This kind of building can host a higher amount of people, saving a lot of space, which is crucial in a busy and crammed modern metropolis. In addition, thanks to recent breakthroughs in architecture and construction science, new skyscrapers can resist to different natural disasters. For example, it is impressive how they can absorbe the energy of an earthquake, which was considered disastrous in the near past.
Conversely, others argue that old buildings represent a fundamental part of cities’ cultural heritage. In order to understand the history of a country, it is crucial to explore its ancient walls and floors. Between those we can learn lots of information about our past or reasons behind a historical event. As an instance, some rooms can also suggest us how artists were manually producing their famous statues or paintings. However, they sometimes may be unsafe, because of the age, but they can be restored, to comply with the actual safety rules
In conclusion, old buildings are a hot topic in our society, While some people want to protect them, others believe they should be replaced by modern ones. As far as I am concerned, historical houses should preserved at all cost: modern constructions have some advantages, which are outweighed by the cultural and historical importance of old buildings.