It is a controversial problem that whether a city should preserve its old,historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modrn buildings.Some people think that a city should preserve its old,historic buildings because they are the witness of the past,others think that a city should destroy them and replace them with modern buildings because they take up a lot of places.As far as I am concerned, I prefer the previous idea that the old,historic buildings should be preserved.
Although the old,historic buildings would take up a lot of places and the modern society will need these places to building the new buildings such as skyscrapers,the old,historic buildings are the witness of the history.It is known that a modern city comes from the past history which had a valuable experience.The old,historic buildings could tell people what happened in the past and what was the past like.From that,people could gain kownledge and experience to contribute to the modern society better.
The old,historic buildings could also be offered to education.They can become the teaching bases for children.It is necessary for children to know the past,so that they can kown better about the present society.In addition,children will be interested in the strange structure of the buildings and the funny things in the buildings,which will promote the childern to study.
Finally,the preserved building would offer the important clues for archeologists to study the past.It is more valuable to maintain them well than destroy them to build new ones.
In conclusion,the old,historic buildings should be preserved for the reasons above.First is that they are the witness of the past,then they could teach children something and last they are the important clues for archeologists.