Some people believe that old buildings should be replaced with more modern ones. Other people argue that we should protect old buildings because they have a special value. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The antagonism between new and old, good and bad, beautiful and ugly et cetera has marked humanity all over their historical evolution. This principle is also relevant when it comes to buildings as part of a specific urban or rural area. Firstly, no locality appeared overnight. On the contrary, they are the fruit of a long and sustained evolution, in which a plethora of styles, colors and trends are interlaced. In other words, this combination of factors is an essential criterion that helps us appreciate the beauty of a city or town. Excluding the old edifices would equal to closing the window to their origins. As a result, people may lose the possibility of making a visionary journey into the past of their locality, the charm of which may fade. On the other hand, tourists are always excited when visiting the old towns, where they can contemplate the architecture of the past centuries. For instance, it’s always a pleasure for me to stroll through the old and narrow streets, explore gothic cathedrals, vestiges of medieval walls, castles in Renaissance style and discover architectural hidden gems. From my point of view, it would be an atrocity to demolish them all for the sake of new and modern constructions. In conclusion, while some voices claim that old buildings don’t have their place in today’s life, I will firmly support the idea that these are genuine elements of every nation’s patrimony that must be protected. Old does not necessarily mean mediocre. This is why it is vital to find a balance that can allow the cohabitation of ancient times and contemporaneity.