Your Answer ▼
Recently, the removal of old building has become a fiercely controversial issue. Some people assert that old buildings should be replaced with new buildings, while others argue that people should preserve old buildings. Personally, I believe that both arguments should be given equal weight. In the following essay, the evidence supporting this contention will be discussed alongside relevant examples. On the one hand, it seems difficult to refute the idea that human beings should have the right to keep old facilities. Perhaps an obvious disadvantage of getting rid of these facilities is that a multitude of old amenities are playing an important role in the field of tourism industry. As an illustration, one recent study conducted by the Seoul National University analyzed that the reason why foreingers visit South Korea and it turned out that the main reason is traditional korean buildings. In addition, some of these buildings allow pupils to learn about their history, which exerts positive influences on educating them. For these reasons, there does seem to be a solid basis for several of the arguments in favour of keeping old buildings. On the other hand, it seems short-sighted to contend that old amenities merely bring with positives. The most oft-cited argument against such a view is that new facilities often contribute to an increase in citizen's life satisfcation. To exemplify, one notable traditional palace in China was converted into a national museum and according to one article released by the Beijing Times, about 60% of local residents were satisfied with this change. Furthermore, constructing new buildings make it possible for the government to boost economy since it creats a multitude of employment opportunities related to the consturction. In light of the above, I also find these persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of the debate has its strengths, as discussed above.
|