A few number of people argue that ancient buildings and houses in urban areas should be tranformed into modern structures. This idea depicts that old structures are outdated and affect the appearance of the city. However, they are considered to preserve the culture and popularity of particular nations. Namely, Rome has kept her ancient houses to maintain historical reputation.
No body doubts that old is gold, but for the purpose of beautifying the metropolitan areas, I believe residential homes that do not look attractive should be completely replaced by new buildings. The more the modern structures in the city, the more foreign investors attracted, thus developing the area economically. For instance, recent report from the East African news paper demonstrates that the Capital city of Rwanda (Kigali) has developed significantly due to a sharp rise in the number of investors, who have been attracted by the city’s smartness and appealing structures.
Even though some individuals claim to prefer modernity rather than old fashion, on the other hand, modern buildings are very expensive to rent and maintain. They often require building materials which may be imported from other countries. For instance, constructing a long lasting flat may require timbers shipped from South America, and strong iron bars from, ofcourse, other countries.
In conclusion modern houses are as commendable as old buildings because they keep the city attractive and wealthy, but old buildings are easy to maintain and cost less interms of renting, and this giives the economically humble residents a smile on their face.