Some people say that replacing old historic buildings to modern ones should be allowed because it can bring several advantages, while others argue that replacing does not guarantee the advantages. Both sides may have their own reasons to support their views. If I were asked to choose one, I would like to say that preserving old buildings is better than replacing them.
To begin with, old historic buildings are not just old things, but they contain substantial meaningful value such as the country’s own traditional value. Thus, destroying and replacing with modern buildings is equivalent to removing their own culture and tradition. For instance, I will give an example for Gyeongbok Palace. Since it was built 100 years ago, there were people who argued that it should be moved to somewhere and build a new modern thing on its site. However, the government did not replace it, but just remodeled and improved its exterior. As a result, we can still see the historical legacy of Chosun Dynasty.
Secondly, old buildings can produce considerable benefits. Undoubtedly, modern buildings, such as commercial complex building, department store, can bring substantial money. However, the value of historic buildings and its own traditional culture cannot be calculated into number. There are several palaces in Korea like Gyeongbok Palace and Changgyeong Palace. Nowaday, they are quite favorable places in Korea for a lot of foreign tourists and students. Indeed, a study recently conducted by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Korea suggests that tours like visiting traditional culture hold the significant portion of tours and it can bring great income. This study might indicate that the historic buildings are quite crucial part of tourist attractions.
To sum up, there are still substantial benefits such as its own historic value and actual monetary profit that old historic buildings can make. In this regard, I disagree with the assertion that the government should allow old historic buildings to be destroyed and replaced.