It is a debate on whether a city should make efforts to keep its old, historic building. Although some people may say that the city have has to break them and make (construct) new buildings, I firmly agree with the statement. There are several reasons, but two of the most important ones are as follows. First, old, historic buildings are the best places to teach history to students. Moreover, the buildings can be a good resource for tourism.
Most of all, The old and historic buildings are the good relics to give history class to students. Today teachers teach their student history by with many materials such as pictures on the web or many information in their text book. However, who can ignore of the teaching power that only students can feel in the actual, historical places? For example, As many Korean students visit Kyung-Joo city in South Korea instead for of their trip to extend their history knowledge of history, I also went to the city with my friends. When I got the city, I was surprised because there were was everything that I always saw in my history books. Especially, I had a big interest in Suck-Ga pagoda among of a variety of multiple storied pagodas there. I taught learned the all kinds of pagada and read all imformation that discribe them. I learned more things that those I had learned in my several history calsses. Therefore, many student will agree with that the history building would be the best place for teaching students our history directly and effectively.
In addition, The historic and old buildings can help the city financially. These buildings would contribute to bring a great turism so that they could play a pivotal role as a source to make a lot of money in the city. If the city have has more money, it would make diverse merits, service numerous facilities and fix up old, historic building for people living in the city. According to a research of the government of the Kyung-joo privince goverment, the citizens are satisfying satisfied because many tourists come to their city and it is the most important thing of their income source. Also they are getting better opportunities such as jobs and education services with the tourism income of the city by the more money that the city can earn by the tourism industry. As a result, The city and citizens would take many advantages by keeping the hisroric, old buildings without breaking them all to build new buildings.
In conclusion, I think keeping the old and historic building is better for the city. If the city destroys the relics, they would lose precious means(asset 이 더 낫지 않을까?하는 생각입니다) to provide students with the vivid and alive history class. Additionally, the city would make a huge plan for their increasing budgets and services for citizes. Regardless of what other say, it is time that the city makes a decision for protecting the buildings from the new buildings. The more people realize this, the better city will become.
35분 걸렸습니다. 타자도 느려터졌는데 글 쓰는것도 안해봐서... 결론 쓰다가 7분 정도 잡아먹은거 같애요 ㅠㅠ.깊은 많은 조언들 부탁 드려요 |