IELTS ESSAY - SHOULD OLD BUILDINGS BE PRESERVED?

One day in January, when I went to my hometown for a weekend to discover a building site where a hundred year old house used to stand. Its demolition made me think if old buildings should be preserved and kept in their original state, or knocked down and replaced by new ones. Both ways have their advocates and both deserve attention.

Maintaining a vintage architecture is extremely dear. Any old building requires constant repairs and numerous other actions to preserve antique looks or just make sure it does not fall down. Besides being prohibitively dear, old houses were usually built individually and for a specific purpose, thus being less functional in contemporary environment. For example, real estate of the 19th century, situated in the central districts of most European and some American cities, had large rooms for dinners and things like stables, futile in contemporary environment. Our university building illustrates the issue perfectly: located in an old building, it has an intricate system of corridors making it hard for newcomers to find their way. Finally, old architecture is not superior per se. Some old buildings do not look good at all; many modern ones are more visually appealing. This view was developed in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Architecture changed for a reason, preserving it is like preserving old machinery - it may feel nostalgic, but it hampers the progress.

On the other hand, old architecture is often defended enthusiastically. The champions of this view often claim that it helps keep the ethos of a city and remember the history better. Historic landscapes are thus often protected by law. Sometimes the benefits of these actions (tourism mostly) overweight the costs. Moreover no nation can really remember its history without the architectural heritage. Buildings like the White House, Capitol, Big Ben, and Kremlin serve as symbols of their countries. Hence these should be maintained regardless of the costs.

To conclude, vintage architecture clearly may benefit most cities. Nevertheless, it should not be preserved to zealously; as such actions are both costly and hinder the progress. Sometimes old things should go to give way to the new ones. I believe this applies to architecture.