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 ofhistoric buildings.

To solve the dilemma of whether to preserve old buildings or make modern, practical buildings instead, the statement above prioritizes the latter one. I believe they are not mutually exclusive, and we can both have modern uses and preserve old buildings. But when the only way is to destroy an old building to construct a new one, competing priorities should be weighed against each other so comprehensively. While sometimes modern development is justified, in certain occasions, old buildings should absolutely be secured.

To begin with, we can both preserve the old buildings and define a modern use in their space. Many are those old buildings having a nostalgic aroma of the past and are used as restaurants, coffee shops, bookstores, or other stores and occupations. Such a strategy not only can attract people to the new environment with a nostalgic ambiance, it is also economically beneficial.with such a strategy, neither it is needed to spend time and energy to raze the old one to the ground nor is it required to spend so much on materials to build a new one.

But when the modern development requires the destruction of the old structure, hinged on the significance of the building, planners should take decisions. There are homes of magnitude characters that by preserving them, we honor them. Consider the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi in Porbandar, Gujarat, India. People who observe the house in which such a great man once lived, they become inspired to take the same path and not to render in vain his endeavors. In addition, these buildings have economical income in terms of the tourist industry. Finally, Razing these building to the ground is a shameless act toward the owner of the house and would end up in huge protestations in the world against its perpetrators.

In the final analysis, we should assess the priorities, not to become regretful in the future. A centuries-old building cannot be built again. No matter it is a historic emblem or belonged to a great person, it can be worthy of preservation because of its antique value. At the same time, the cooling and warming of that old building, the restoration, or to buttress the weak pillars to avoid dangers, might impose a high price. Moreover, the location of that house can be appropriate for the construction of necessary parts in that town. A hospital, a new school, or even a parking lot might facilitate the life in that town, and in doing that it can justify the destruction of the old building.

In short, as discussed in the body paragraphs, modern development can accompany the preservation of the old buildings. But when the only way is to substitute a new building, priorities should be analyzed. While some old buildings are priceless that must be kept, there are some other old buildings that securing them does not worth the high price it demands, and with the new buildings the whole society can benefit much more.