This is my revised version.
Some people argue that money should be spent on constructing modern buildings instead of on trying to preserve and maintain old ones. However, I disagree with this idea, because the benefits of keeping existing buildings are considerable as far as the economy, the environment, public health, and national identity are concerned.
For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction produce a significant amount of waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. Moreover, less pollution means healthier people. The construction of new buildings gives rise to a lot of air pollution, and it especially affects people living around the site. If we keep building new buildings, people may have long-term health issues such as asthma, and this will add to the government’s expenditure on health. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low, and some may even opt to emigrate to another country to live in a cleaner environment. All these factors will negatively impact the economy of a country.
In addition, the aesthetic and historic values of old buildings should not be overlooked. Historic buildings are often unique in their design and they typically record the evolution of a city. For example, Hong Kong is a place where East meets West. Some districts have a mix of classical Western buildings and traditional Chinese houses and temples. People can learn about its colonial history from this unique architecture, which helps citizens reflect on and explore their identities. Also, collective memories associated with historic buildings can engender a sense of cohesion in a community.
In conclusion, although the costs of repairing old buildings are high, preserve existing buildings is beneficial to the economy, the environment, public health and constituting a national identity.
