Old buildings contain the historical value of a nation, even the world. However, while some commentators think that the old buildings have no place within a new century, other people defend the idea that history should never be forgotten. In this essay, I shall argue that both viewpoints are, to some degree, justified.

To begin with, the importance of concrete progress cannot be overemphasized. This is because we cannot survive by resting satisfied with the past. For example, our ancestors moved forward from mountain caves to rock-built shelters. Instead of holding on to the old achievements, our ancestors kept upgrading their tools, food resources, and living environment. Which is the reason that we could live comfortably in skyscraper buildings today. It is therefore clear that making progress is much more important than maintaining old buildings in terms of evolution.

On the other hand, some people believe that piling up skyscraper buildings next to each other is not progressive but retrogressive. This is because of the rising growth of the economy has boosted the demand for entertainment places. Which leads to the unnecessary destruction of well-functioned historical buildings. For example, the government allows investors to demolish local farms and old houses to build clubs for profits instead of focusing on the improvements to infrastructure. Since the original notion of replacing old buildings is a necessary upgrade to achieve a constant development of our civilization. It is therefore questionable that some demolishment of old buildings is being decided cautiously.

In conclusion, it should be clear that there are reasons for and against the protection of old buildings. Thus, if changes are to enter the area of old buildings. The government will have to think about how negative aspects of the replacement can be decreased, and positive aspects maximized.