Preserving the historical buildings: A priority

It is important to preserve the beautiful buildings of the past, even if it will be expensive to do so. To what extent do you agree or disagree with it.

It is an irrefutable fact that beautiful buildings of the past, in this contemporary world, are an integral part of a nation’s culture and heritage. Considering this, there are some analysts who insist that it is imperative to preserve these ancient buildings, even if it is a costly activity. I staunchly agree with the above-mentioned proposal due to a notable reason.

There is a practical factor which affirms that these buildings with historical significance should be preserved irrespective of the costs involved. Being a marker of our culture and heritage could be a substantial factor. It is generally seen that these ancient structures are not only a sign of our rich culture, but also an important heritage for our future generations. Therefore, we are duty-bound to preserve them. For example, a recent article in The Age revealed that 80% of the historians in Australia agree with the aforementioned viewpoint.

Despite the reason discussed above, there are some opponents who endorse the view that preserving the ancient buildings is quite expensive. Prioritizing the funds for other sectors could be a single most reason behind opponent’s viewpoint. It is commonly seen that these funds can be used to improve the health and education sectors rather than historical buildings. No doubt, the better usage of the money can be true to a certain extent; however, it should also not to be forgotten that preserving the heritage buildings is paramount for any civilization. If this is the case, would it be wise to oppose this noble idea? My answer would be no.

In the end, indeed, preserving the ancient buildings is expensive may be true, but I still believe that we should preserve these buildings even if it involves higher costs.