With the growth of economy, the lesser the land are available for new buildings. There has been much debate about whether an old building should be preserve or demolish. As people are confronting with preserving or demolishing the old buildings, I am agree with demolishing the old buildings rather than taking down the jungle for new buildings.
First of all, the old buildings here I meant are the OLD buildings, not the historic buildings with significant history background. Here are some points to support my stand. There are variety of reason why these old building are being replaced. Many of them were built as residential purpose and typically the problem is that they no longer have appropriate facilities for modern kind of living. For example, they been built in an era when air-conditioning system was not a priority, or even bathrooms and toilets were outside. For my point of view, the design of old building is not suitable for the lifestyle nowadays, it is often cheaper to demolish these building rather than renovate them.
Fire safety system has not been installed, serious damage of asbestos, supporting system getting weaker. These are some serious issues that I think old building should be demolish as these not only affect the aesthetic of urban city streetscape but could cause injured to the building occupants.
The New York Tombs, a prison that also housed courts and a police station, was built in 1838. However, the foundation was weak and the building began to sink.
 |
| New York Tombs |
The Western Union building was designed to be fireproof. However, it had burned down in 1890.
 |
| Western Union Building |
Structural system of massive building getting weaker after a long duration without proper maintenance and even a building which initially designed to be fireproof being burned down then led to demolish. Safety is the priority of a building no matter how many historical meaning behind it. Unsafe old buildings are consider a threat to the society. Removing a dangerous building can actually add value to the property surround it, which could attract more buyers to that area.
"Not every old building is a good building and not every one has heritage qualities."
We have to recognize the line between nostalgia and heritage.Old building need higher maintenance compare to new one. To those old buildings that are badly damaged to be restored, it is not cost-effective or worthwhile for the public. In this case, the society could get a better return from a brand new building rather than restored building. There is no wrong with demolishing an old building if the land cleared is going to be used beneficially such as academy center, condominium, commercial office, etc. There is no point to keep an old building which do not have any function other than letting it 'decay' naturally.
People claimed that old building can reflect their culture. But what about buildings that torn down or things that demolished to build these buildings? I could say that these buildings destroyed the culture of that area when they were built. The point is that culture can change by following the steps of lifestyle.
People around the world will only recognize Petronas Twin Tower, this skyscraper building as a symbolic building of Malaysia but not the old building that hidden somewhere in Kuala Lumpur. Old buildings with significant historical background should be preserved but not the old buildings that abandoned due to its serious damaged.
