A lot of money is spent on renovating old buildings. We should knock them down and build modern ones instead. To what extent to you agree or disagree with these statements

Some people say we invest an enormous amount of money to preserve old constructions, while some others feel it is unnecessary, so we should demolish and erect skyscrapers to replace those. As both arguments have their own pros and cons, I do not completely agree or disagree with none of these statements. Ancient architectures are the living evidence of our heritage; those reflect the history of our ancestors' life. We have learnt so many aspects of human life such as engineering, architecture and painting only through these old architecture and monuments. Taj Mahal is one of the classical examples of the old building. We have admired the elegant beauty and architectural fantasy of this building for many generations. In addition, it has been serving not only as a heritage site but also as a site for tourist attraction. On the other hand, keeping an old building without damage is a costly exercise. It needs a significant amount of funds for maintenance. Sometimes those are a burden to governments, especially when those constructions are not cultural or archaeologically important. Instead of keeping them, demolishing those historically non-significant building will be beneficial for the public. We could erect new vertical skyscrapers for hospital or schools or shopping malls with modern facilities in the same place, which will be more useful and futuristic. Dubai is an excellent example of this approach, where they have erected many modern vertical living amenities at the site of non-significant old construction. To conclude, even though there is the argument of keeping old buildings without destroying, I believe demolishing these structures is a vital decision: this should only be done after the careful assessment of the importance of the new structure vs the cultural and religious significance of the old building.