Should We Protect Old Buildings QUESTION: Some people think that old buildings should be protected by law because they are part of a nation’s history. Others, however, think that old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices. What is your opinion? Should history stand in the way of progress? ANSWER: Many old buildings symbolise the identity and history of the city they reside in. Once these old buildings are destroyed, they cannot be revived. For this reason, they should be protected, and if possible, relevant law should be made. Many modern cities have historical buildings. London has the Big Ben, Paris has the Eiffel Tower and Sydney has the Sydney Opera House. These landmark buildings make the cities unique. They are what the local residents are proud of and they attract international visitors every year. The world would be much more boring if all these were replaced by common modern buildings. On the other hand, whether it is worth it to keep protecting all old buildings is questioned by many. Many people believe accommodation standard would have been remarkably improved if some old buildings had been allowed to be knocked down. This is especially true in overcrowded cities like Shanghai. Many local people struggle to live in an acceptable home. The increase in accommodation space would help to bring the housing costs down. In general, all old buildings are not worth the efforts and costs to protect. Only those of historical importance, extraordinary beauty or public interest deserve to be protected. It is also important to protect the old buildings at reasonable costs. Spending too much public resources on old buildings is not a wise decision. In conclusion, some important old buildings should be protected. But not all old buildings are worth the efforts and costs. While protecting old buildings, it is important to keep the costs reasonable.