Some people think that we should replace old buildings and houses in cities with more modern buildings. Other people think we should protect old buildings.

Some people believe that we should defend

buildings

that are not used now. But I think that local forces need to substitute old constructions with new ones because the populations of towns are growing and the cost to maintain them.

Firstly

, nowadays there are thousands of

densely-populated

Correct your spelling

densely populated

show examples

cities all over the globe, where citizens have to live in compact and cramped flats. So, if we replace old

buildings

with modern skyscrapers, the price of homes may decrease significantly.

For instance

, the most overcrowded megapolises, like Tokyo, are filled with numerous huge

buildings

and there are no places for old ones, especially in the centres.

Secondly

, to protect ancient constructions a government needs a lot of money because mostly they don't make any profit by themselves.

Moreover

, local councils nowadays have far bigger problems to deal with,

such

as poverty or unemployment,

for example

, in my hometown forces don't have any time to think about defending ancient

buildings

in the area. Admittedly, if a construction has a large historical background, it shouldn't be demolished, in order to save traditions.

Such

buildings

can be turned into museums. In

such

way

Correct article usage

a way

show examples

, not only old castles, where kings lived, can be saved from destruction, but

also

make a small amount of money.

To conclude

,

while

the most of old small

buildings

should be replaced with modern skyscrapers to tackle the overpopulation problem and not to spend too many resources on

this

issue, some of them must be protected and made into fascinating places, where tourists go, to save the history of countries.