Some people think that too much money has been spent looking after and repairing old buildings, so we should knock down old buildings and build modern ones instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is controversial that the maintenance of decayed

buildings

is a waste of money and their lands should be used for the construction of contemporary towers. From my standpoint,

this

statement is properly false as they are essential to specialise the culture and

also

offer advantages for the economy.

To begin

with, for many

countries

, if a

country

replaces their ancient building with a modern structure, it will be regarded as an imitation of other

countries

which has no special characteristic in terms of culture and tradition.

For instance

, in Vietnam, many temples with the architecture of France are still repairing and maintained which have been depicted as the symbol of their historical period. Had it not been for the existence of these

buildings

in Vietnam, other

countries

would not have recognised the significance of their war eras

as well as

the patriotism of their citizens.

On the other hand

, it is true that investment on modernize towers would bring an abundance of benefits to the economy.

This

is

due to

the fact that many of them are built with the proposal of conducting business, and their modernity would illustrate that the

country

is well-developed.

Nevertheless

, these

buildings

may not make the

country

attractive to others as these contemporary features have had in many developed

countries

for a long time.

In contrast

, the existence of historical

buildings

would be a highlighting characteristic that fascinated foreign visitors which

also

provides benefits to the improvement of tourism and the economy. Taking everything into consideration, I reckon old constructions should not be cut down as they have represented the culture and tradition of the

country

which contemporary ones would definitely delete them.