While some people believe that aged buildings and residences should be placed to more contemporary ones, others believe that those should be preserved. This essay will discuss both perspectives and provide my view in the end.
One of the main benefit for develop new constructions instead of preserve the exsiting ones is that new building can provide more practical functions. For instance, with newer materials, modern houses have more insulation than the one built 10 years ago, which mean it is more environmentally friendly. In addition that, modern constructions usually utilise the technologies, consequently those are more duable and can stand with different type of hazadorus such as storms and earthquacks. Modern archtectures can provide us more safety and reliance.
However, the need to protect old buildings exists. Buildings and houses which have long history depict our cultures. Unlike modern buildings, the techniques that are unique to local area can be found on the builings and this should be preserve for our culture to thrive. To illustrate this, there are some historical temples in Kyoto, Japan where numerous tourists visit every year not only from domestic areas but also international areas. Those sites work as a catalist for people to learn cultures. If we dimilished old buildings, people would loose the opportunities to endulge themselves to their cultures.
In my opinions, both perspective should be taken into consider depending on the type of archtectures. On the one hand, if it is a residential house, citizens should live there without any difficulties. Therefore, it is reasonable for accommodations to be replaced to newer ones. On the other hand, if a building is a public spaces or have relations to historical event, it should be saved.
To conculude, although replacing to new buildings and houses from old houses can serve more practical benefits, historical buildings also have vital role for preserving cultures. I adovocate to take eclectic approcach of both side.