The reading and the lecture both talk about the value of old buildings. The article says that the value of old buildings is exaggerated. However, the lecturer argues that the value of old buildings is not overvalued.
First, the reading says that the cost of maintaining old buildings is extremely burdensome for citizens. On the contrary, the lecturer disagrees with the arguments. He claims that the economic worth of these buildings is tremendous. For example, heritage tourism is growing every day. there are far more financial contributions to the local economy than tax costs that are imposed to the citizens for maintaining the building.
Second, in the reading, the author says that these old buildings contributes to a lower quality of life for city residents. In contrast, the lecturer counters this opinion. The counter argument is that these old buildings are able to conform to contemporary standards of quality. Many old buildings have already been restored, are structurally safe and equipped with modern conveniences of newer buildings. He also mentions that the codes concerning plumbing and wiring are being applied to all buildings. Although it takes time to implement these changes fully, city planners are working on it every day.
The final point made in the reading is that the traditional design of the old buildings is incompatible with the aesthetic tastes of contemporary society. However, the lecturer contradicts this point by stating most cities in the world that are held in high esteem for their architectures all have an aesthetically pleasing mix of tradition and modernity. For instance, Amsterdam is renowned for its modern architectures between historic buildings.