Some people think that we sould replace old buildings and houses in cities with more modern buildings. Other people think we should protect old buildings. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

In past decades, some humans had thought that we would have taken the place of old properties by covering the cities, and building increasingly modern societies.

Conversely

, some others agreed we ought to preserve those old

buildings

. In

this

essay, I will discuss the double sides of the points and export my view clearly. For the reason of preserving ancient places, all old

buildings

should be protected and reserved for a long time. There are lots of old

buildings

destroyed by earthquakes and other natural disasters in the past.

For instance

, in the 1970s, there were thousands of paramount attractions in the cities damaged.

By contrast

, some important cultural relics,

such

as terracotta warriors, have been continuously preserved to lead to current educational presentations and anthropology, which are directly influencing young students and researchers eventually.

On the other hand

, municipal innovative development must be sustainable rather than destroyable. Numerous ancient places of interest must be paid more attention to and highly preserved to extend their historic research

otherwise

we would lose those endangered icons of the nation's history. As their values of economy and culture, A series of protection for these ancient

buildings

are mandatory rather than controversial.

Furthermore

, the mission of preservation of old

buildings

can be significant and long-term support provided by the authorities. In conclusion, ancient valuable

buildings

should be reserved well, with no doubt to exist with modern

buildings

simultaneously.

Also

, it's firmly believed that they can be repaired

instead

of replaced. Each individual has to know and protect himself, and the government do have to invest and keep sustainable protection for them in the long run.