Should we preserve or destroy old buidings?

old buildings versus modern infrastructure

A school of thought claims that money allocated to the preservation of old buildings should be better utilized on modern infrastructure. From my point of view, new buildings are more practical, old buildings, on the other hand, are indispensable cultural relics due to their cultural and economic value.

Old buildings can serve as witnesses to a city's aesthetic and cultural heritage, providing a sense of place and a connection to the past. Ba Son shipyard, located in Ho Chi Minh City, used to be a major shipbuilding facility during Nguyen Dynasty and a national historic monument. The local or the tourist can typically associate historic structures with renowned historic events and characters such as Nguyen emperors, Ton Duc Thang, assisting young generations to gain an understanding of the contemporary's lives. Society would be losing a lot of our historical and cultural background if demolishing such buildings.

Developers tend to be after immediate profit and modernity, yet it is a potential economic gain of historical buildings that they cannot be aware of. Thanks to valuable materials and unique designs of antiquated architectures, older buildings have their own identity and distinctive character, making them seem to be more attractive than modern buildings. Shanghai, which was mostly vacant land across the river, has now been converted to a protected historic center. In addition, the west of the river has become a financial district, a good source of revenue for the government. What's more, repairing and reusing existing buildings uses energy and material resources more efficiently and reduces waste

As a consequence of industrialization, the demolition of old buildings for spaces to build modern infrastructure has become a norm these days. however, I firmly believe historical structures are a heritage of any country and ought to receive proper preservation for the government.

A school of thought is a belief or idea that is supported by people. That is not the reference in the original presentation.A direct question was being asked of the writer, whose opinion is the focal point of the discussion. It is the question, as posed to the author, that should have been reflected in the restatement. There is no school of thought provided therefore, the rewrite is inaccurate and does not meet the scoring guidelines for the prompt. There is no clear opinion set before the reader either, which further proves to be a scoring problem for the writer. His personal opinion which is:


should have been stated twice in the presentation. Once as the personal opinion response to the question, then, as a restatement of the opinion in the summary conclusion. That is the format adherent way to present the ideas required in this essay.