An article published 3 days ago warned people regarding the lack of charm global hubs with skycrappers may have. Some people truly believe modernisation of the urban areas is pivotal. Even though they could be right, I personally disagree with this view point.
To begin with, a wealth of evidence suggests that we must adapt our buildings with the sustainable issues the world is currently facing. To illustrate this, I remember when I visited Singapore, the bushes along the buildings aiming to capture the carbon emissions was a no-brainer. Besides, implementing modern buildings improve undeniably our purchasing power. For example, at Singapore again, I saw an impressiveskycrapper which could accomodate around 15,000 people meanwhile in Paris, a plenty of buildings can welcome a maximum of around 12 residents. Thus, expenses related to the rent are far lower, implying a far-reaching consequence regarding our savings.
On the other hand, people highlight the heritage let by the vintage buildings. For example, hausmannian appartments allow the city of love to set apart from the others cities worlwide. Furthermore, old buildings are, to a certain level, part of the culture. Then, I understand any reluctance the local populations may have regarding the change of some features. Also, preserving the architecture is paramount since it is a cornerstone of the history. As a matter of fact, some activists pointed out the changed that occured in the house of Jean-Max Feval, a famous belgian author from the nineteenth century.
Overall, some people deeply believe that we should build more modern buildings in order to get affordable housing costs and more adaptable cities. However, we have to bear in mind the importance of keeping old buildings. Effectively, it allows not only to conserve the heritage and the culture but also the history.