modern vs old architecture
Whether the council should abolish or restore old-aging dereclit buildings has invariably been a main contention among all sectors or life. While a large array of people cite abundant evidence to advocate doing away with these run-down sites, a progressive protest the opposite. My own perspective would be given in the following dissertation.
It goes without saying that old sites are worth being looked after and repaired indisputably. To abandon such places, first and foremost, would evoke fierce opposition from residents of area. This is because the long-aged sites have existed since time immemorial and witness the advancement of civilisation, thereby earning acclaim from individuals and even being connected with certain fairy tales in some cases. A conspicuous case in point is the Maria cathedral surviving some restorations due to the pre-existing belief that saints have fallen in the area where it is constructed and it would be unlucky if done away with.
Be that as it may, overwhelming evidence exists to attest support for construction of new buildings. Understandably, this policy would positvely inform the well-being of the public. A fresh interpretation is the fact that nation boasting soaring skycrapes and state-of-the-art designs facilitates the proliferation of tourism. A profusion of jobs would be generated accordingly thanks to the realization of such a policy, thus present citizens with a higher salary to cope with unpremeditated problems cropping up in lives. Take, for example, extravagant and luxurious buildings render NYC and LV the top in terms of the most richest places globally.
Controversy still reigns and varied opinions show no signs of converging on. From my point of view, however, abovementioned discussion favours an conclusion that it capitalizes on the purpose that decide the priority of each policy, in a little more details, where prefers cultural individuality to economic income would opt for restoring traditional sites.
