Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

It is an arguable debate subject whether a city should retain its historical

buildings

or replace them with modern ones

while

demolishing them. I firmly opine that old structures are an essential part of a country's history, and they should be protected locally. The first and foremost reason is that historical

buildings

offer an insight into a country's past. They might play a pivotal role in promulgating cultural and historical values to the world.

That is

why, they should be preserved rather than destroyed

them

Correct pronoun usage

apply

show examples

to be replaced with new

buildings

. To cite an example, Maiden Tower and Icharishahar are located in Baku which is the capital of Azerbaijan. Their importance in exhibiting moral and national values can not be neglectable. For that reason, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, decided to allocate money each year to protect their ancient. Another reason is that these old

buildings

, generally, attract tourists, and can open a door to improving the financial status of any country by a flock of

people

.

While

taking old structures that are aesthetically pleasing to the eyes into account,

people

are downturned to these

buildings

.

For instance

, the Taj Mahal accepts more than 1 million

people

each year to show its amazing structure.

This

action is a boon to benefit the economy of India as the admission is fee-paying.

To conclude

, despite a belief that

people

deem old structures should be abolished by a municipal of a city, it is undeniable that they have feasible effects in terms of economy and exhibition of cultural values.