Could anyone please give some remarks and correction.. thank you!
Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?
The intensive development in a city has driven its look into a massive change. Its buildings tends to be established in a more contemporary design. Unfortunately, the big-capital developers' need to acquire spaces for new projects has threaten the existing of the old buildings. To deal with this situation, I think the government should not replace them with modern building. There are several reason why the government should keep the buildings preserved.
First, the old building has its own history that leaves us many values to learn. The historic building is a heritage for the current and future people who dwell in the city. The citizens would learn the story of the city in the old days. For instance, in ex-colonial country like Indonesia, there are so many European-architectured buildings scatter across the big cities. They were mostly built in 18th Century, and the current government still keep the building existed as a history mark and lesson learn that the country had ever been occupied and we should not repeat the history in the future.
Another reason is that old buildings could save the money. The new building will cost some big fund to establish a contemporary building, and consequently the citizens them selves are the ones that bear the cost. By preserving the buildings, the government spending would be saved and focused on a more productive need of the city. In fact, some historic heritage could be a tourism place that earn extra money. For instance, Gedung Sate (Sate Building) in Bandung City, Indonesia, one of the historic buildings in the city, is the favorite place to gather for the citizens, and in fact, the tourists who is visiting the city would not pass this spot. The place could be a land mark and draw the people to visit and the government will earn some extra income.
In conclude, the idea of replacing the old building is not acceptable because there are many stories that teach values to our children and the citizens, and it by any means could save the money as today's contemporary building costs very high.
Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?
The intensive development in a city has driven its look into a massive change. Its buildings tends to be established in a more contemporary design. Unfortunately, the big-capital developers' need to acquire spaces for new projects has threaten the existing of the old buildings. To deal with this situation, I think the government should not replace them with modern building. There are several reason why the government should keep the buildings preserved.
First, the old building has its own history that leaves us many values to learn. The historic building is a heritage for the current and future people who dwell in the city. The citizens would learn the story of the city in the old days. For instance, in ex-colonial country like Indonesia, there are so many European-architectured buildings scatter across the big cities. They were mostly built in 18th Century, and the current government still keep the building existed as a history mark and lesson learn that the country had ever been occupied and we should not repeat the history in the future.
Another reason is that old buildings could save the money. The new building will cost some big fund to establish a contemporary building, and consequently the citizens them selves are the ones that bear the cost. By preserving the buildings, the government spending would be saved and focused on a more productive need of the city. In fact, some historic heritage could be a tourism place that earn extra money. For instance, Gedung Sate (Sate Building) in Bandung City, Indonesia, one of the historic buildings in the city, is the favorite place to gather for the citizens, and in fact, the tourists who is visiting the city would not pass this spot. The place could be a land mark and draw the people to visit and the government will earn some extra income.
In conclude, the idea of replacing the old building is not acceptable because there are many stories that teach values to our children and the citizens, and it by any means could save the money as today's contemporary building costs very high.