People think that old buildings should be knocked down and give way to modern buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
As the modern economy continues to expand and technology continues to evolve, traditional ways of life and thinking are subject to increasing pressure to change. One of the casualties of this economic and technological evolution is traditional architecture. The demands of modern society mean that human beings require amenities and buildings fit for the modern age. However, that does not mean that traditional architectural structures should necessarily be destroyed to make way for new alternatives.
Undoubtedly, changes in modern society have led to a change in the demand for housing. A rising urban population, often concentrated in a small area, requires housing both suitable for living in and appropriate for the conditions of the urban environment. To that end, we have witnessed numerous skyscrapers emerging across city skylines the world over. It is clear that some types of building, which may have been suitable for residential purposes fifty years ago, are no longer adequate to cope with the demands of a twenty-first-century populace. In that sense, it is correct to address the housing challenges faced today.
Nonetheless, the cultural heritage of a nation is an essential part of what characterises it. In order to protect the national identity and history, it is also important to protect the nation’s architecture. Measures should be put in place to ensure buildings of historical importance are protected and treated with the respect they deserve. Governments should certainly provide the necessary funding to make this happen.
On balance, while it is clear that modern society demands changes to the way we live, it is also important to protect our heritage and history. In that sense, we should not destroy old buildings unless the social benefits outweigh the need to preserve the national heritage.