Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.
In many cities there are both modern and old buildings. So, there is a problem: what should government do with historic buildings. While many people believe that they should be preserved and maintained, I think that it will be better to replace them with other infrastructure. I feel this way for three reasons, which I will explore in the following essay. First of all, maintaining ancient constructions is very expensive and require a lot of efforts. Since as time passes the buildings will be destroyed, as a result, city should always restore them. The money for maintaining these constructions could be spend on other needs, which are more important. For example, on building hospitals, schools and other useful facilities. For instance, in my area we have very old, historic building and a quit big amount of money government spends every year on it. But almost nobody goes there to see it. So, it will be better to just replace this construction with the school, as we really need it. The second reason is that old building, if it is not restored, can even spoil the hole view of the city. As, by the time, it will be disintegrated, and if government don’t preserve building, it will be ugly. Imagine, collapsing building in the center of a modern, beautiful city, the perfect storm. The last reason is that ancient construction can be even dangerous, especially if it has not been restored. For instance, in St. - Petersburg there is an historic house, where people live. But it is absolutely unsafe, since it has been restored for a long time and it is in very bad condition. To sum up, old, historic houses should be damaged and replaced, for the simple reasons: it is more expensive to maintain buildings, and the construction could make troubles, if it has not restored.
Submitted by Anjeli on