Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? v.7

Past and future have to be a part of every city's characteristics; this is what makes cities different and diverse. That’s how we get attracted to one city and feels bored at another. Walking in the streets alone should give us an idea of the history of the city or how technologically advanced it is. So, I think it is a critical task and an influencing one on the inhabitants of the city to decide what historical buildings to keep and what to replace with modern iconic ones. This balance can keep the soul of a city and still hold a place on the race of development. On another hand, I think it is crucial to keep a significant amount of any city's historical buildings as it teaches people about their past and how they actually developed, it grows a sense of loyalty and patriotism; it increases the feeling of ownership and in return preservation. In general these impacts positively on society and on the message any visitor leaves with after a visit. Here comes to mind how the city of Munich in Germany rebuilt and still most of the historical buildings destroyed during the world war two, it is an accurate imitation of the original destroyed building using archived photos and old blueprints, this shows how significant history is to their culture and way of life. In brief, it's not the buildings that are preserved, it's the history, the stories behind those buildings and the people spent parts of their lives on those buildings, preserving all this will never happen unless there are still remains of their presence and those buildings stands as a witness and a living proof of this existence.