Some people think it is important to keep and maintain old buildings rather than replace them with modern building.

The question of replacing old houses with new ones is highly topical nowadays. It is considered by the great part of the society that everything should be renovated and refreshed including edifices. Their opponents claim that old

constructions

can possess crucial value for the culture, on the one hand, and are still occupied by people living in them. I prefer to agree with the latter point. It's not a secret that

constructions

tend to be crashed and dilapidated over time. They change their shape becoming unsuitable for living and

that is

the

first

reason why they should be replaced with time.

For example

, if the roof of the construction is erased because of enduring action of sun or moisture

this

building cannot be exploited with the purpose of living.The

next

reason is the aesthetician one. Some buildings can be so ugly and unattractive that they just cannot answer new demands and tastes. Examples of those are soviet standard panel or brick residential 5-floors buildings, which are called "

khrushchevki

Correct your spelling

Khrushchev

", which were built with thoughts of everything but aesthetic.

However

, not all edifices deserve reconstruction or demolition. Some of them might be either of cultural significance or of a historical one. As an example, we can take printing yard on Nikolskaya Street in Moscow. It's a house that was constructed in the 19th century and

this

fact can be noticed if we look at the backside of the construction. It looks extremely decrepit and rundown in the background but

this

dilapidation has its own charm and emphasizes how ancient the building is. So, in my opinion, it should not be reconstructed or even restored.

Furthermore

, there might be not only historical or cultural reasons but humanistic ones.

For instance

, the building can be inhabited by families living there for years and refusing to leave their places. Of course, their desires should be taken into account as well. In many cases, it seems more rational to allow these people to stay in old

edificies

Correct your spelling

edifices

edifice

rather than organize their resettlement for financial reasons or for others. To conclude, the answer to the question about managing the destinies of old

constructions

cannot be concrete and explicit. The decision to maintain old houses or to replace them with new ones should be based on common sense.

However

, I strongly believe that if there is an opportunity to preserve ancient

constructions

it should be done to save cultural heritage.