There is an argument over whether it’s more desirable for a city to maintain its old, historic buildings than to rebuild new-fashioned buildings to replace them with. Although some people do agree not disagree with the statement, I firmly believe that preserving old, historic buildings is a much more important alternative for following two reasons. Most importantly, such historic buildings give its own distinguishable quality to a city. In addition, they play a significant role in reminding people of historically great feats.
First of all, old and historic buildings make an immense difference which makes a city truly unique from other cities. As the a world is getting standardized, cities all around the world have become to look similar more than ever. However, by preserving historic buildings, cities are still able to keep their own characteristics despite a variety of apparent similarities between cities. Opponents to this idea may argue that rebuilding new modern buildings will also be able to make a distinguishable difference as do old buildings. This may seem true, but the reality is quite different. For example, in my country, Korea, there are two extremely different cities. One is Gunpo and the other one is KyungJoo. Even though Gunpo is much more well-developed and has more modern buildings than KyungJoo, people in Korea are even more aware of KyungJoo than of Gunpo. This is simply because people cannot distinguish Gunpo from the other normal ordinary cities with modern infrastructures, while in KyungJoo, there remain lots of historic buildings remain thanks to dedicated efforts to maintain them. Comparison between two cities reveals that old and historic buildings in a city need to exist in a city in order to keep its distinction/character.
|