Some people say that old and traditional buildings should be preserved. But some other says that buildings should be demolished. Discuss both views and give tour opinion.
Some people say that old and traditional buildings should be preserved. But some other says that buildings should be demolished. m55G1
The discussion whether the ancient and traditional buildings should be conserved or destroyed, is an argumentative one. This essay, therefore, attempts to forward both views, with my idea venerating the later notion as it is shameful for a country.
There exists some reasons, why people prefer to preserve the monuments. One of the foremost reasons is, it reflects the art and culture of the nation. Consequently, if traditional buildings are preserved, it conspicuously denotes nation pride. art and history. Beside these, it is a subtle attraction for voyages or tourists. As an example, the Krishna Mandir in patan, which is fragile, however, plethora of people prefer to mesmerised its beautiful.
On the other hand, it is believed that old and traditional buildings are structurally feeble and they are not utterly safe. Hence, people find those buildings at its verge, so it enhances the fear in civilians. Additionally, the old structures affects the government plans of development. For instance, the projects which contains traditional monuments, should be directed without having detrimental effects on it.
Bringing the illustration of my own experience, the weak structure are pejorative and somehow, a bad impression for the country. Therefore, other nations, pictures them as impoverished country. Similarly, rather than renovating those ancient structure which, takes excessive amount of time, it must be averted with heavy machinery in no time. As a result, some beneficial projects can be implemented, after its destruction, for the upliftment of the country.
In conclusion, the old and traditional buildings which symbolizes one's art and culture sh oi udl be preserved. Nevertheless, the feeble structure depicts the country's disrepute, so other beleive it to dismantle.
The discussion whether the ancient and
traditional
buildings
should
be conserved
or
destroyed
, is an argumentative one. This essay,
therefore
, attempts to forward both views, with my
idea
venerating the later notion as it is shameful for a country.
There exists
some
reasons, why
people
prefer to preserve the monuments. One of the foremost reasons is, it reflects the art and culture of the nation.
Consequently
, if
traditional
buildings
are preserved
, it
conspicuously
denotes nation pride.
art
and history. Beside these, it is a subtle attraction for voyages or tourists. As an example, the Krishna
Mandir
in
patan
, which is fragile,
however
, plethora of
people
prefer to
mesmerised
its
beautiful
.
On the other hand
, it
is believed
that
old
and
traditional
buildings
are
structurally
feeble and
they are not
utterly
safe.
Hence
,
people
find those
buildings
at its verge,
so
it enhances the fear in civilians.
Additionally
, the
old
structures
affects the
government
plans of development.
For instance
, the projects which contains
traditional
monuments, should
be directed
without having detrimental effects on it.
Bringing the illustration of my
own
experience, the weak
structure
are pejorative and somehow, a
bad
impression for the country.
Therefore
, other nations, pictures them as impoverished country.
Similarly
,
rather
than renovating those ancient
structure
which, takes excessive amount of time, it
must
be averted
with heavy machinery in no time.
As a result
,
some
beneficial projects can
be implemented
, after its destruction, for the
upliftment
of the country.
In conclusion
, the
old
and
traditional
buildings
which symbolizes one's art and culture sh oi
udl
be preserved
.
Nevertheless
, the feeble
structure
depicts the country's disrepute,
so
other
beleive
it to dismantle.