It is believed that old, historic buildings are not useful to the community and they occupy space in an already premium location. Take Colosseum of Rome for example, the building occupies a lot of space in the middle of a city but it has more advantages that compensate for the loss of premium due to land cost. It can be argued that contemporary buildings have more advantages than disadvantages by analysing the impact due to culture and revenue from tourism in these buildings.
The rich cultural and heritage of our ancestors can only be passed down to future generations through such structures. The structure is evidence of history and portrays itself to provide a comparison of lifestyle evolution since the recorded history. As an illustration, Eiffel tower standing tall in the centre of the city was built about a century ago. It clearly is not having any useful money generating purpose apart from tourism. However, the future generations can take it as a proof for the existence of scholars who could build skyscrapers which could last several centuries without the use of modern technology and equipment. The pride of owning such engineering marvel is priceless.
Secondly, the government’s spending to preserve this building is benefitted multiple folds through the revenue generating by touring individuals. The revenue generated from the Tirupathi temple, for instance, accounts for the second largest revenue generating source after tax revenue in case of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, it can be clearly seen that the amount of effort and the time invested by city authorities could fetch a very attractive return over investment than building modern structures.
On the other hand, due to the migration of people from countrysides and population expansion within cities, there is a huge demand for real estate space. There is increasing pressure on local governments to demolish heritage buildings due to inefficient use of space inside them. For instance, Singapore which has a total area of 27 km2 cannot afford to have a large colosseum. These days, though, local bodies are coming up with innovative ideas like moving an entire building by fitting wheels under them. Such techniques can be used instead of destroying the culture and revenue from them.
In short, preserving a historic building within a city proves to be a highly valuable proposition than replacing them with modern buildings. Hence it is recommended to city officials for looking into every possible alternative than demolishing the historic monuments.
It
is believed
that
old
, historic
buildings
are not useful to the
community and
they occupy
space
in an already premium location. Take Colosseum of Rome
for example
, the
building
occupies
a lot of
space
in the middle of a city
but
it has more advantages that compensate for the loss of premium
due
to land cost. It can
be argued
that contemporary
buildings
have more advantages than disadvantages by
analysing
the impact
due
to culture and
revenue
from tourism in these buildings.
The rich cultural and heritage of our ancestors can
only
be passed
down to future generations through such structures. The structure is evidence of history and portrays itself to provide a comparison of lifestyle evolution since the recorded history. As an illustration,
Eiffel tower
standing tall in the
centre
of the city
was built
about a century ago. It
clearly
is not having any useful money generating purpose apart from tourism.
However
, the future generations can take it as a proof for the existence of scholars who could build skyscrapers which could last several centuries without the
use
of modern technology and equipment. The pride of owning such engineering marvel is priceless.
Secondly
, the
government
’s spending to preserve this
building
is
benefitted
multiple folds through the
revenue
generating by touring individuals. The
revenue
generated from the
Tirupathi
temple,
for instance
, accounts for the second largest
revenue
generating source after tax
revenue
in case of Andhra Pradesh.
Hence
, it can be
clearly
seen
that the amount of effort and the time invested by city authorities could fetch a
very
attractive return over investment than
building
modern structures.
On the other hand
,
due
to the migration of
people
from countrysides and population expansion within
cities
, there is a huge demand for real estate
space
. There is increasing pressure on local
governments
to demolish heritage
buildings
due
to inefficient
use
of
space
inside them.
For instance
, Singapore which has a total area of 27 km2 cannot afford to have a large
colosseum
. These days, though, local bodies are coming up with innovative
ideas
like moving an entire
building
by fitting wheels under them. Such techniques can be
used
instead
of destroying the culture and
revenue
from them.
In short, preserving a historic
building
within a city proves to be a
highly
valuable proposition than replacing them with modern
buildings
.
Hence
it
is recommended
to city officials for looking into every possible
alternative
than demolishing the historic monuments.