Some people think certain types of old buildings should are worth preserving more than other ones. Which types of old buildings should be preserved? Do you think the advantages of preserving old buildings outweigh the disadvantages?
Cities should preserve certain types of old buildings and the advantages of this very deed outweigh its disadvantages.
Buildings that have intrinsic value should be preserved. Buildings of a certain era, namely pre-World War II, tend to be built with higher-quality materials such as rare hardwoods (especially heart pine) and wood from old growth forests that no longer exist. Prewar buildings were also built by different standards. A century-old building might be a better long-term bet than its brand new counterparts. Take, for example, the antebellum Kennedy Baker Walker Sherrill House in West Knoxville, Tennessee. Until the City Council approved a zoning deal, the house was threatened by developers’ interests. However, following its classification as a historic site, the house and its five-brick-thick walls will be reborn as an office building that could withstand the fiercest of tornadoes.
Old buildings are invaluable. It is crucial to preserve old buildings that contain an undeniable amount of timeless beauty. People do not flock to a city to see the offices of new business; tourists come to cities to see beautifully old buildings. New York City it not itself without the Empire State Building, just like Paris is not Paris without the Eiffel Tower. Secondly, cities should preserve old buildings of historical significance because seeing these buildings help modern day people remember the past as to be mindful of how a city or nation came to be. For example, St. John’s Church still exists today in the Church Hill neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia. It is where Patrick Henry gave his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, which would convince the leaders of British America to wage war against the oppressive British crown.
In conclusion, cities should preserve some old buildings which are priceless.
It is important to maintain certain old buildings in view of their advantages to societies. Old buildings such as museums, palaces, religious constructions, and ancient structures and sites are a part of a nation’s history. Societies have long sought to protect and preserve these cultural heritage for considerations ranging from historical research to public education to tourist attractions and to the desire to reinforce a sense of national identity. People have only to cast their eyes on an old building to feel the presence of the past and the spirit of a place, as if it were the very reflection of history. In this respect, demolishing an old building of historic value is no different from destroying a piece of history.
Nevertheless, sometimes it is better to knock down certain types of old buildings that are less worth preserving. Although this might seem “morally” wrong, actually it is the right choice to do so. When a historic structure has become a threat to society, for example, having it removed can actually add more value to the area around it. In such cases, of course, the land cleared should be used beneficially for the progress of society. This change could attract property investors to that area that might have otherwise been avoided. Furthermore, it would often cost a lot more to restore a destroyed old building than to replace it with a new one.
In the big picture of pros and cons, it should be made a legal rule to protect and preserve old buildings of historic value. But then, there should as well be a few exceptions to the rule.