There is some argument over whether that old architecture should be preserved rather than replaced with modern building. From my point of view, I am agreement with this issue. This is largely because that historic building is valuable for visited spot. Moreover, people can learn and feel its historic meaning.
First of all, I believe that it is very attractive place for tourists who want to experience other cultures. Although it is old, architecture having distinct historical value shows its countries cultures directly. It should be interesting for tourists because of its unique, contrary to modern building which is similar to each other. Considering this respect, old and historical building is valuable to tour spot. Italy is a case in point. When I was visited Italy, I was impressed to see its a number of historical architectures. Whole city is enormous tourist spot. In practice, Italy earns astronomical profit from tourist industry.
On top of that, people can learn and feel vivid historical trace through historical building. All heritages have historical massages. That’s why we build up museum and preserve artifacts having historical value. Old building is in like manner. We can see where and how past people lived in, moreover important historical event is reappeared in historical places. This is much more directive rather that reading book or just looking a picture. In Korea, there is a bridge which spotted by blood because a past official was killed by some betrays. Government not destroy it although it is horrible, and it became historical spot for learning loyalty. Therefore, old building should be preserved for teach history for people.
To sum up, we can know old building’s historical value. We can make profit by making it tourist places. Moreover, we can learn about our traditional and historical events through those buildings.