Some people think it is important to keep and maintain old buildings rather than replacing them with modern buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Undoubtedly, every nation is culturally rich,

thus

it is widely believed that it is vital to preserve historical monuments and buildings than tearing down and build modern infrastructure. To a certain extent, I prone to agree with

this

statement. On the one hand, old buildings are undeniable evidence, that illustrates

h

Add an article

the

show examples

istory ad culture of every country.

For instance

, Brussels is one of the most sophisticated cities because of its historical buildings and architecture.

Besides

that, it is more common to maintain only the most important old buildings,

such

as castles rather than houses of village people.

Instead

, governments should protect luxury castles,

c

Add an article

the

show examples

athedral as well as village houses, so that the upcoming generation can have an opportunity to see them. To illustrate, in Estonia, there is an open-air museum, which illustrates the houses, clothes and household appliances of ancient people.

On the other hand

, these days many big cities are experiencing overpopulation. In order to accommodate a larger number of dwellers, governments replacing old buildings with modern ones.

In addition

, certain old buildings are dangerous for people’s visits and reconstruction is not an option as human action may destroy them completely.

For example

, there are many old premises, where livestock kept in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, but the place is unsafe as there are many infectious parasites.

Therefore

, it is better for governments to convert them into modern infrastructure. In conclusion, some claim that old buildings should be protected from being demolished and replacing with modern ones. In my view, countries should take into account the importance of old building and the accessibility to old premises.