Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation's history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
Many people have opinion that old buildings must be protected by law because have many histories. However, some people think, the building must be changed with new buildings. I think both of them have different benefit for our life. I will give reasons about my statement in the following paragraphs.
As we know, the old buildings usually have many histories, and then people can learn more knowledge from this building. Especially, for students, they are studying about history of Mohammad Hatta who is proclaimer independence of Indonesia in the school, but they did not know real about the story. So, they can go to the house of Mohammad Hatta. In addition, the old buildings give many benefits for government because more tourists visited this building.
In the other side, we can find several buildings get renovation but keep maintaining the original character of the build and being used for modern purposes. For instance, Jam Gadang which is landmark of Bukittinggi City in West Sumatera, Indonesia. It is a different building which exists only in the town of Bukittinggi. The obelisk shaped building with a height of 26 meters which has four hours on the four sides of the top. The building was built in 1826 as a gift from the Queen of the Netherlands. So until now, many tourists who is visiting the building not only come from local tourists, but also people emanate from foreign tourists.
To summary, governments should keep the buildings so not need to knock down the buildings. As it is mentioned before, those buildings reflect the history of the nation. Replacing those buildings with new ones may be a temporary solution for inhabitants but will certainly be the loss of a part of history permanently. I think, it is very important to protect and conserve old buildings because we can learn about our history from the buildings.
Many people have opinion that old buildings must be protected by law because have many histories. However, some people think, the building must be changed with new buildings. I think both of them have different benefit for our life. I will give reasons about my statement in the following paragraphs.
As we know, the old buildings usually have many histories, and then people can learn more knowledge from this building. Especially, for students, they are studying about history of Mohammad Hatta who is proclaimer independence of Indonesia in the school, but they did not know real about the story. So, they can go to the house of Mohammad Hatta. In addition, the old buildings give many benefits for government because more tourists visited this building.
In the other side, we can find several buildings get renovation but keep maintaining the original character of the build and being used for modern purposes. For instance, Jam Gadang which is landmark of Bukittinggi City in West Sumatera, Indonesia. It is a different building which exists only in the town of Bukittinggi. The obelisk shaped building with a height of 26 meters which has four hours on the four sides of the top. The building was built in 1826 as a gift from the Queen of the Netherlands. So until now, many tourists who is visiting the building not only come from local tourists, but also people emanate from foreign tourists.
To summary, governments should keep the buildings so not need to knock down the buildings. As it is mentioned before, those buildings reflect the history of the nation. Replacing those buildings with new ones may be a temporary solution for inhabitants but will certainly be the loss of a part of history permanently. I think, it is very important to protect and conserve old buildings because we can learn about our history from the buildings.
