In the course of urban development, we often find ourselves confronted with the old building problem. Some people think we should pull down the old houses and buildings in the way. However, others argue that is very rash decision to tear them down without full consideration that we have to preserve our old historic buildings.
To what extent do you agree or disagree ?
Rapidly urban development often faces with a demolition of cultural endowments such as a historic architecture, unique streetscapes and traditional sites. Developers pressure to replace them because a development of new urban facilities is more important. However, it is wiser if municipalities preserve their historic assets.
On top of that, new urban facilities such as modern markets, office buildings, and apartments are more important than heritage assets because of economic values. This argument is always said by developers. However, that is not really true because heritage assets fundamentally have potentially economy value if the government conserve and manage them. Conservation of heritage city can generate income for local society and support for reducing poverty. For instance, after local government of Solo City, a heritage city in Central Java Province, does conservation to historic old houses of local society and streetscapes called as “kampong Batik” – a name of area which produces traditional scarf and fabric – then the local economy rose rapidly. It was caused by an increase of influx of tourists, the growth of batik industries and local markets. This illustration shows that the heritage conservation is better than demolition because it increase income-earning opportunity for local people
Furthermore, because of rapidly-urbanizing cities, cultural resources become insignificant and it is often said that they can be replaced by a museum. Artifacts are safer in the museum and historic buildings can be made as miniature in that. New 3D video technology can also became a solution in documentation of traditional sites for future generation. Nevertheless, all of the artificial documentation cannot replace the real one because each part of historic sites is unity with local people. They have a pride to their city and the feeling cannot be replaced by anything.
In a nutshell, it is needed more good political will from each government in conserving and managing the historic sites. They should make a good policy framework for their urban development.
The introductory is good because it stated the position. The second paragraph or the first body paragraph is excellent because it provides the statements which agree to the demolition in the first sentences, then it gives the writer opinion that is opposite. Furthermore, it gives a clear example to support the writer statement and it closes with a sentence as a point. However, the second body paragraph haven’t example, and it should be explored to be better. The closing paragraph is also weakness.
In overall, the sample get between 6.5 – 7.