When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you

It is popularly believed that if modern planners feel that place taken by old buildings may be used for new purposes, it should be taken. Perhaps, many of us support this idea due to the belief that those changes may greatly improve our lives but perhaps, the cost of those improvements are too high and thus I disagree with the stance.

To begin with, we who live in cities which have a long history have underwent many inconveniences because of obsolete planning of those cities. For instance, many towns of Europe have narrow, bent streets which do not allow local residents use cars or public transport. Moreover, many of old buildings have one or two floors and thus they cannot give shelter to many people; moreover, those buildings usually have problems with water supply, electricity and even safety. Consequently, many of planners aver to rebuild those streets and demolish those obsolete, inefficient buildings. They point out that if we, for instance, destroy ten houses in the center of London, we may erect a skyscraper which may become a home for several hundred of families. From this viewpoint, the implementation seems to be reasonable but may we assert that this policy may be extrapolated on all old buildings?

The answer on this question is "no" due to the fact that many of old buildings are extant masterpieces of ancient architecture which possess indispensable value for nation or even humankind. In fact, many great scholars and artists worked to create great buildings of our past such as Kremlin and the White House. In other words, those buildings are not mere homes or habitation for its residents but they are masterpieces of ancient architecture which may be compared with other pieces of art such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. Their value is unquestionable , for instance, even Nazi Germany, which was embodiment of pure evil, did not boom ancient cities; during the Second World War no boom was dropped by Nazi aviation on France's capital and therefore all of its beautiful landmarks were preserved. In other words, the implementation of the policy will be analogous to tearing apart works of Van Gogh in order to give the canvas to a modern painter.

Furthermore, the implementation of the policy will unavoidably ruin our cultural heritage as well. Many of buildings are not only masterpieces but the living history. For instance, in Ekaterinburg a house is located which was used as the last resort of the last tsar or Russia; in basement of this house the tsar’s family was shot and the history of the country was shifted into new direction. Although this building is wooden and was built by peasants for their needs, it has become a part of Russian history which out to be preserved.

In conclusion, although the proposed policy has some serious advantages and seems to be reasonable, its realization in presented wording will cause more indispensable damage than bring benefits because those buildings not only masterpieces of architecture but also living pieces of our history. Therefore, the fulfillment of the policy is highly undesirable.