Biletul 7 hould a city try to preserve its old

[mell]

7.Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Bring arguments and examples to sustain your ideas.

[davos]

For centurie people torn down anything they did not needed and built new things. Most historical cities that we now want to preserve have passed through many demolitions. In that sense, preserving everything is like stopping history and may turn a city to a beautiful corpse.
However, I don't mean that everything should be destroyed. Every city has important old buildings of historical or artistic significance and these should be maintained whenever possible. But there are also thousands of buildings, mostly houses, that are old and yet not special. Trying to maintain all of them in their original form is too muc. If not anything else, it shows how little trust we have to ourselves, to our ability to make something beautiful. It is possible to maintain some of these buildings and repair them, even alter them to serve contemporary needs. Imagine that these buildings have no elevators, no central heating and no toilets. So there is always some degree of intervention, but people usually hide it behind a facade. I find this stupid. If you alter an old building ther is no reason to pretend that you don't, in the end you create a historical lie.
It is good to maintain street patterns and the aproximate size and volume of buildings, but there is no reason to hide new buildings behind old facades.