Recently, there has been a growing discussion about whether old building should be demolished and redeveloped for further innovation or preserved. While both viewpoints have their clear merits, i am more inclined to believe that old buildings should be preserved due to their cultural heritage and the ability to foster economic growth.
One major benefit of which the idea that old buildings should be replaced by newer, more contemporary buildings is the avoidance of potential danger that can be posed by the old buildings. Many building which have been constructed a considerable time ago produce toxins due to alck of proper maintenance, which eventually might deteriorate human health. Another threat posed by abandoned buildings is its weak foundation, which increases the possibility of collision, which, in turn, may have devastating consequences. Thus, if abandoned old building are demolished, future accidents may diminish. Another significant factor indicating that reconstruction provides more advantages is the improvement of the infrastructure. The majority of buildings which have been constructed a long time ago can not be utilized for any purpose, instead they might exacerbate the look of the city, hence, provided that those buildings are replaced, new amenities, such as residential areas and business centres can be built. Consequently, demolishing old buildings and replacing them alleviates future risks, as well as creates more opportunities, extending the infrastructure.
The opponents of this opinion believe that old buildings should be protected and preserved. One noteworthy benefit of ancient building preservation is its historical heritage. Many buildings illustrate the history of the country, and thus, attract tourists to the country. To cite an example, European countries, such as Italy or France record large number of tourists visiting their country every year for their architecture and historical buildings. Followed up by this point, preserving historically crucial buildings may promote economic growth and progression. This can be seen in many countries with ancient archiecure. Many old buildings may be presented as a tourist attraction, which, if maintained well, will serve a great deal of profits to the country. This development will open new opportunities and new workforce will be needed, thus job selection will be wider, contributing to the rise of employment level. As a result, keeping old constructions will contribute to increased level of tourism, as well as economic development.
Despite the obvious advantages that redelevopment of ancient constructions provides, I am firmly of the opinion that preservation is more beneficial. Protecting old buildings not only promotes various aspects such as tourism and employment, but also presents the historical and cultural heritage of the country. The buildings carry history of the country, which no modern construction can ever do, hence, by maintaining the historical constructions, we make sure that culture is also preserved.
All factors considered, it is reasonable to state that while the proponents of the opinion that old buildings should be replaced by modern constructions claim that it is beneficial due to reduction of potential danger and enhanced infrastructure, the views of the opponents have their merits as well, as preservation boosts the economy and protects cultural values obtained throughout history. The best course of action would be preserving the old buildings and taking proper care of the site.