Some people argue that certain old buildings are worth preserving more than others. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people argue that certain old buildings are worth preserving more than others. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Personally, there are several types of architecture that should be preserved and I believe that the benefits of conservation outweigh the drawbacks.
First of all, There are two types of building that have to be maintained. It has to do with significant historical importance and cultural influence. Aspects of history, the Independence Palace in Vietnam which is one of iconic symbolization linking to key in Reunification Day. Moreover, this building is also a place where people always visit to recall what exactly happened in the past. Next with architecture sides, Notre Dame Cathedral is not only a marvel of ancient France architecture but also a symbol of democratic ideals and cultural achievement. By protecting these structures, the future generations can appreciate and connect with their culture and historical.
On the other hand, preserving these old buildings is difficult, because of the need for financial and material resources. Critics argue that spending resources on old buildings takes away from urgent current needs and might disrupt the flow of urban areas. Nevertheless, Financial issues could be compensated by profits from tourists visiting those old locations, providing long-term sustainability and boosting local economies.
In conclusion, I believe that the importance of preserving culture and history through the preservation of certain old buildings is far more important than the progress they inhibit.