nhatlinhle95
Oct 27, 2021
Writing Feedback / Replacing old buildings by new ones. [2]
Various ancient constructions playing a crucial role as a country's history are under the protection of the law. Some suggest that there should be new buildings replacing over these old ones. In my personal opinion, I totally disagree with this idea for several reasons.
First of all, the ancient buildings are the historical and cultural representation of a country's identity, on which serious conservation should be implemented. It can be easily visualized that if all countries are modernized with full of the state-of-the-art buildings and high-rises, the culture of these countries will be gradually faded. Take Japan as an example, they are successful in maintaining numerous old buildings, leaving an unforgettable impression when people think of Japan's culture.
Furthermore, the ancient buildings can be financially beneficial to the economy of a country. In details, as tourism industry is booming, travelers commence to explore the landscapes and culture from other countries and many have interest in the historic relics and monuments. Consequently, the one-of-a-kind ancient constructions become the appealing destinations and bring a huge revenue to the GDP of that country. For instance, in Vietnam, Hoi An ancient town and Hue citadel are among the most visited spots, where thousands of visitors have set foot on and spent handsomely on their trips every year.
By contrast, it is sometimes thought that by replacing the old constructions by the new buildings will make a country look more developed, so that more investment will be drawn. However, I believe that there should be a balance between modernization and traditional values.
To conclude, the ancient buildings should be retained due to their economical benefits and the essence of the country's image.
should ancient buildings be retained or replaced by the modern architecture
Various ancient constructions playing a crucial role as a country's history are under the protection of the law. Some suggest that there should be new buildings replacing over these old ones. In my personal opinion, I totally disagree with this idea for several reasons.
First of all, the ancient buildings are the historical and cultural representation of a country's identity, on which serious conservation should be implemented. It can be easily visualized that if all countries are modernized with full of the state-of-the-art buildings and high-rises, the culture of these countries will be gradually faded. Take Japan as an example, they are successful in maintaining numerous old buildings, leaving an unforgettable impression when people think of Japan's culture.
Furthermore, the ancient buildings can be financially beneficial to the economy of a country. In details, as tourism industry is booming, travelers commence to explore the landscapes and culture from other countries and many have interest in the historic relics and monuments. Consequently, the one-of-a-kind ancient constructions become the appealing destinations and bring a huge revenue to the GDP of that country. For instance, in Vietnam, Hoi An ancient town and Hue citadel are among the most visited spots, where thousands of visitors have set foot on and spent handsomely on their trips every year.
By contrast, it is sometimes thought that by replacing the old constructions by the new buildings will make a country look more developed, so that more investment will be drawn. However, I believe that there should be a balance between modernization and traditional values.
To conclude, the ancient buildings should be retained due to their economical benefits and the essence of the country's image.
