It’s often argued that city administrations provide too many cash flows towards the restoration of ancient buildings, while it’s preferable from most of the people to spend that money to replace the old buildings with new ones.
In my opinion, this can bring some benefits as well as a lot of drawbacks, so I partially disagree.
It’s true that if we want to reach a global development of the humankind, we should renew not only our technologies and our way of thinking, but also the place where we live. In other words, I think that the old houses should be knocked down in order to leave space for modern buildings, such as the skyscrapers.
But, if on one hand I agree with removing the old unused houses, on the other hand I can’t have the same thoughts about the buildings which have always been significative for people, i.e. the theatres, churches, cathedrals, old museums and every other construction that is linked to the cultural roots of the society.
In particular, I would say that we should encourage the restoration of these buildings, as they have a significant impact on the landscape of a city, and they can handle the memories of the art of the past and the history of that particular place. For example, if we think about the fire that unfortunately happened in Paris a few years ago, we can’t forget that Notre-Dame was hugely damaged by that, so spending a lot of money was essential to bring the original magnificence of the cathedral back to life.
To conclude, it’s important for cities to get developed by replacing old buildings that aren’t linked to the culture of the society, such as some unused houses, to build modern ones, but it’s even more important to preserve and repair the ancient buildings that play a significant role for the history of the place they have been built, even though a huge amount of money is needed.