▶ Your Answer :
I think a city should preserve old and historic structures on one hand and replace to the new ones on the other hand according to the line that building has in the city.
First of all, when the buildings have historic meanings or worth to preserve, city government should make proper plans to maintain and secure the value of the building. For example, the buildings like old palaces and architectural masterpieces need to be preserved for the value within them. These buildings can be greater when it is properly maintained as tourism assets or educational sphere which will inspire a lot of citizens than just normal replacements. Thus, the focus should be how we can maximize the precious buildings that were luckily inherited to our generation.
However, in the case of the benefit from the replacement overwhelms the preservation, old buildings should be newly built in a proper way. For instance, if old buildings are becoming a crime spot for its oldness or severly damaged and rusted buildings are threatening the safety of citizens, they should be reconstructed. A city is for the citizens live now. Thus, if old ones are becoming the serious obstacles for the future, it should be managed for the better life of the citizens.
In short, to make the best solution regarding the old and historic buildings, one sided view will not effective. The city authority must examine closely on the pros and cons of the reconstruction by prioritizing the right of citizen. Luckily Seoul, the capital of Korea has doing quite well. It has more than 600 years of history as the first city of nation and also faces the needs of replacement. The city government maintained wise solutions for decades. It has preserved northern side as a historical district to preserve old palaces and traditional houses while developing the other parts as a modern city.
In this way, by adopting the good points of each opinions regarding old building issues, we can make the best 3rd way.
|