［Direction］ Many old building are protected by law because they are part of a nation’s history. However, some people think knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
［Example］ Old buildings sometimes conflicts with social advancement. Appealing as it is in the eyes of business people, tearing down old architect to make room for real-estate development is not a wise idea in many ways.
The primarily reason is that old buildings, like our native language, forms our cultural identity and keep a unique record the history of a country. From this aspect, old buildings are considered very valuable as one of the symbols of the culture of a nation. For instance, the traditional Chinese residence in Beijing, Siheyuan, are once seen as the remains of the Old World, and were destroyed by people shortly after the founding of People’s Republic of China. Until recently did the people and policy makers as well realize that it is an inexcusable and stupid idea to commit such a terrible deed because old buildings, once gone, are not restorable. But their economic values and aesthetic appeals have just caught the attention of Chinese people.
Moreover, old buildings, if planed and preserved properly, could coexist with modern real-estate development. In France, aged buildings bring millions of dollars of revenue for the government and amazed thousands of tourists. Yet no one thinks the high-rising office buildings and apartment buildings make the old architect a sore of the eye. By contrast, the new learn from the old, a fact that makes them more attractive.
We admit that not all old buildings should be treated equally and some of them do need to be torn down for various reasons such as safety and new buildings. However, we should not be too blind to see their value too. If only the real and practical factors are being considered, the country will be sorry for its loss in years to come.
