The debate for physical modernization of buildings does not cease to end. With one side thinking to replace older buildings to fit with humanly demands, while the other like to preserve older buildings for reasons like cultural persevation.
In sight of both views, starting with replacing older buildings, the main concern is it’s practicality which affects the aesthetics of newer buildings. In the modern world, buildings have been altered to fit the needs of those who inhabit it, affecting how it looks. An example is how people look for accessibility with the rise of awareness to be more inclusive, especially to those with disabilities. It is then reflected in modern architecture like adding ramps, handles, automated doors, grail, and much more. This doesn’t say that modern buildings are not aesthetically pleasing, but function is at the forefront of modern architecture.
Now moving forward to the other side of the argument, there are people who would like to preserve older buildings as these not only showcase aesthetic, but it also serves cultural significance to an area and a country. We can learn much more about our heritage because of these buildings. These buildings would then become historical sites, and there are historical sites globally. It invites everyone to learn more about the life of those before us. As I mentioned globally, it has invited tourism too, which helps boost the economy of an area or country, which are all reasons I am leaning more towards.
To conclude, both sides have their points. One side prefers the functionality of a modern building as it allows to be more inclusive for this generation, while the other would keep these buildings to continue to learn from it and preserve the cultural heritage and benefit it brings. Overall, it depends on the demand of that area or country, they would either go for funtion or go for history.