▶ Your Answer :
Many cities seek
renovation for their development. Some of them try to build modern buildings,
sometimes destroying some old buildings. Those new skyscrapers even replace
historic ones. However, it’s not desirable that those meaningful buildings are
broken down. Rather, they should be protected.
To begin with,
it is not efficient to destroy existing buildings and build new ones, given that
those old buildings are safe enough to stay in. Mostly many of the historic
buildings are still in good condition with some repairs. A large amount of
money and time would be required to operate all the things about replacing the
buildings. Actually, the functions of a building don’t change drastically even
if it’s reconstructed. To illustrate, my university has been reconstructing
many buildings including a library and a laboratory for five years. The new
buildings seem clean and comfortable, while the main functions never changed.
In addition,
historic buildings are very important in their meaning. The historic sites show
us lots of facts and lessons from the days far ago. Descendants learn a lot
from history, and this is the reason that students visit museums, houses of
famous writers, jails, etc. We should remember the ancestors who fought for
individual freedom, democracy, or rights for voting. But what if those historic
sites are destroyed? While newer and cleaner buildings replace them, the
profound meaning of the sites would not be preserved. For example in Italy, a
woman edited an old picture of Jesus Christ on her own, to make it seem clear.
The picture does seem brighter in its colors, while the historic and religious
meaning of it has gone.
In conclusion, a city should try to keep its
historic buildings even though they are old. Destroying and rebuilding them
would throw away various important values. Moreover, since buildings don’t have
enormous changes in their function and are still rigorous enough, it’s
economically undesirable to replace those buildings with modern ones. |