should a city preserve its old historic buildings?
Many people think that sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice old buildings for the development of cities. Others think that historic buidlings have sybolic meanings of a city, which can not only show the real view of the past, but also symbolize the spirit of a city. In my opinion, city should preserve its old historic buildings. The reasons are as follows.
First of all, old historic buildings has its intrinsic value and any nation that claims to cherish cultural achievement in any field has a duty to care for them. It's not because how rare they are, how expensive they are, but from the historical duty that people have the responsibility to do so. It's no doubt that people will destroy as long as they will build. It's unreal to remain all old buildings, but at least, old historic buildings, which were built in a certain ege, indicates a certain history, or shows a certain way of people's life, should be preserved. Old buildings are not only buildings, but also the way that we explore and understand our history. For one building, many people may gain different knowledge from it. For example, architests can know how people in the past build houses, what materials they use and how many efforts they take to it. Writers want to know how people live a life in that ege and their lifestyle. Historicans may want to record the history of it.
Secondly, historic buildings can be reminders of a city or even a nation's culture and complexity, and bring much pleasure to people. Old historic buildings in a city can be symbols of one place which can remind people of a piece of history. Many cities leave their impression to tourists mainly for their natual scenes, buildings and local people's lifestyle. Some people also connect the buildings with the spirit of a city or people in history. For example, in some European countries, tourists can see the old historic buildings everywhere.