Some people think that old buildings should be protected, while others believe that they should be replaced by newer buildings. Discuss both sides and give your opinion

Historically, governments have proposed to re-design cities massively in order to create megalopolis.

While

this

belief is staunchly supported by many politicians, many others argue ancient buildings should be repaired owing to their representation of our history. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides and explain why I firmly believe that both types of designs should be balanced among all architectural designs. To start with, there are many advantages of building cutting-edge skyscrapers or middle-height constructions because it shows the advancements in many fields

such

as architecture, engineering, and technology.

Besides

, nowadays many innovative materials to withstand natural disasters like earthquakes have been created.

For example

, In Miami, where mostly hurricanes have wiped

this

coast, houses have been built with high-quality waterproofing and stronger concrete and cement.

Hence

, there was a decrease in mortality and morbidity

as a consequence

of these events.

On the other hand

, landmark buildings represent our past life and ancestors.

Then

, many constructions were developed under conditions in which humans had to deal with diseases and violence because of slavery in times of dynasties and bourgeois classes.

For example

, The Canal of Panama is one of the main historical badges worldwide leading to shorter distances between The Atlantic and The Pacific oceans,

however

over its construction hundreds of people died

as a consequence

of yellow fever. Currently, there are two parts of The Canal in which the oldest one has been restructured

instead

of replaced.

To sum up

, both types of infrastructures are crucial because an equilibrium is required.

Nevertheless

, human beings should take advantage of technology,

however

, there are many old designs that are considered relics.