There is growing concern about the redevelopment of cities nowadays. It is generally acknowledged that antique constructions should be mantained, while some people believe that these buildings should be turned into more modern structures. Although both positions are supported with valid arguments, I personally think that we ought to protect old buildings in our cities.
The main reason for this perspective stands for the maintenance of the cultural heritage. There is no denying that every city has its own history, which plays a crucial role in its identity. In many cases, the history of a place can be studied by looking at buildings such as houses, banks, museums and universities. These constructions use to be a reliable representation of a city’s wealth, art and traditions, as they show how did people live through history. Thus, removing these old structures would lead to long-term consequences, involving a decreased understanding of a city’s history. In contrast, public institutions should actively protect these buildings, in order to maintain the cultural heritage of the place. One key example of this is the case of “Casa de las muertes” in Salamanca, one of the most antique houses in the whole region, which hides an interesting story about the city. This construction is extremely expensive and, because of that, nobody wants to make an effort in order to protect it. As a result, last year a part of the structure fell down to the street, and the building is getting increasingly damaged each month. If this house was left alone or removed, Salamanca would lose a relevant part of its identity.
However, it can also be argued that it is convenient to replace old buildings with new ones in order to redevelop cities. There is growing concern about the sustainability of urban structures in modern cities, and it could be harmful to mantain old structures while building new ones. This is because it would require not only vast land extensions, but also an important amount of time and money. The main problem is that some old buildings do not meet the needs of current inhabitants. For instance, old university constructions may not provide students with electricity, internet connection and digital material. This obsolescence is also relevant in structures like train stations, which are nowadays not enough for huge masses of people. That is the case of Chamartín Station in Madrid, which was not adapted to the increasing number of train passengers and, as a result, the station has been worked on for years. However, it would have been a longer and less sustainable process if they had builded a new structure in another place, just to preserve the old one.
In conclusion, it is both true that people should protect old buildings in modern cities, as well as the perspective of replacing them with new ones. On the one hand, it is convenient to keep them in order to mantain the cultural heritage of the city. However, this decision could lead to the construction of new ones in other places, which is not a sustainable approach. All things considered, I firmly believe that it is generally more relevant to protect old buildings, as they are an important part of the history of a city. Though, it should be done provided that these buildings are not preventing cities from meeting modern neccesities.