Should a city preserve or destroy its historic buildings
The issue here is whether old, historic buildings in a city should be preserved or replaced by modern buildings. In my opinion, buildings of historical value should definitely be protected rather than destroyed. I base my point of view on following reasons.
Firstly, each historical building is precious property of human being. Like an antic, the value of an old building cannot be measured by money. We will lose those valuable historical buildings permanently if we don’t preserve them. Once a historical building is destroyed, we can never restore it; even if it is restored to its original look, the new building is only a fake replica; the historical value will never come back to us.
Secondly, a historic building always represents history and has educational functions. Each one of them can tell us a story. For example, some buildings are evidences of foreign invasion, others are signs of various religions existed in past decades. People nowadays can always obtain historic or cultural information through visiting these old buildings and sites. Although we can learn the past from books, pictures and by visiting museums, nothing can compare with the actual historical buildings themselves, which can bring vivid educational material to us.
Thirdly, historical buildings are a symbol of a city and a valuable tourist resource; therefore a city cannot go without historical buildings. Beijing is represented by the Forbidden City, the Summer Palace, which are all historical relics. It is hard to imagine that someday the City of Beijing decides that all these buildings should be destroyed and modern buildings be built on their sites. Because those historical relics and buildings are too important to the city and can generate profound tourist income. A city will benefit more by protecting its historic buildings than by replacing them with modern buildings.
For all reasons given above, I will strongly suggest a city municipal should preserve the old, historic buildings.
