Some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than other ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Old building preservation has always been of great debate.

Although

some individuals believe in either demolishing or saving all kinds of decrepit buildings, I agree with the view that some cultural

monuments

are worth saving.

To begin

with, cultural heritage is what individuals refer to as to foster a sense of identity.

accordingly

, there are numerous ways to keep these values over time as cultural richness presents itself in many parts of society and region, historical construction being one of them.

Consequently

, preserving

such

constructions would contribute to saving traditional values and passing them down from generation to generation.

For instance

, anyone talking about Italy can think of the Pizza Bridge. It is obvious that destroying

such

magnificent and precious can have a negative impact on preserving the country's history.

However

, not all of the old

monuments

are worth maintaining over time

due to

the unfruitfulness of the minority . to clarify, some of these constructions are too destructed to be saved and

due to

their unacceptable approach, they are not many tourist attractions.

Moreover

, if societies exert to keep every decrepit structure alive, an enormous amount of resources is required to be dedicated to

such

maintenance projects. To cite an example, Britain governors once believed in allocating the majority of their authority to save old

monuments

and after a decade they were faced with a considerable amount of financial conflicts.

To conclude

,

Although

historical

monuments

are of great traditional value, we cannot exert to keep either all of them or none alive.

As a result

, I strongly agree that people should put adequate effort into saving some of them.