Some people
believe that it is better to build new museums and town halls instead of
renovating the old ones. To what extend do you agree or disagree? Give your
opinion and relevant examples from your own experience.
A topical debate is going-on, on the issue of whether old
infrastructure of museums and town halls should be replaced by new buildings,
or should they be renovated. Many are in favor of renovation, but others think
it is better to replace old structures.
Refurbishment of old monuments such as museums and town halls
is essential and must be practiced rather than replacing such facilities with
new designs. Doing so is imperative because these buildings represent the
heritage and history of the past decades. Their architectural designs and art
work is the foundation for several new learning and courses, that can aid new
learners to understand the principles of architecture.
Moreover, these setups are quite close to people who have
spent their life by working or enjoying their adulthood in or around these
buildings. For such individuals these monuments are a part of nostalgia, and
demolishing these establishments may hurt their sentiments and emotions. Thus,
restoration is considered to be a more practical step.
However, some planners feel that these buildings not only
present a serious threat of crumbling and jeopardizing lives but also affect
the environment adversely due to high consumption of electricity required to
keep the premises illuminated, ventilated and heated. By replacing these
structures with new eco-friendly designs, authorities will be able to
address the challenges of environmental safety and human life, and utilize the
same space more productively, leaving enough space to address the other more
pressing issues such as addressing parking problems by offering underground
parking facilities.
Therefore, I personally feel that old museums and town halls
must be replaced by new concepts. This way both the cultural and societal
aspect of a city can be addressed and preserved hand in hand.
