Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

Historical landmarks are a crucial part of a city's heritage. It has, since ever, been debated upon whether these landmarks should be preserved or demolished. This essay will assert the restoration of these buildings as a pivotal step towards preserving heritage with solid reasons and examples. Heritage of a city defines its history. The older the civilization of a place, the higher its stature. Although, the structures maybe wornout and unlivable, however a thorough work at revival can renew its lost beauty. A recent example is of the food street in Lahore, where restoration work has made the street bustle with life. The intricacy of the architecture of the mughal times can be seen evident after the renewal project. Hence, in actuality reviving the granduer of the golden times as a history of Lahore. Another reason, a more materialistic one, is that historical sites serve as tourist attraction devices for a city, subsequently providing a boost to the economy of that place. Restoration might be expensive, but the money-flow it brings afterwards covers the cost. To illustrate, a whole lot of tourist aim to visit the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt. Henceforth, taking along a huge amount of their currency, there. This influx of tourist is optimum for the city to flourish. To sum up, I strongly propogate that heritage sites must be preserved as they add to the economy of the place as well as reflect its history through times. If these sites are destroyed, it will be a huge loss for the whole world.