Topic 65-Historical sites tear down or preserve? Migodu

[Migodu]

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

When it comes to old building, some people think that a city should destroy and replace old, historic building, they fail to see the value of these building. I am and probably will always be, one of those who support that a city should to preserve its old, historic building. There are three premier reasons as follows.

Historic building will mark the city with diverse architecture styles. Nowadays, most of cities buildings are designed in the same modern style as “concrete forest”, people get bored with such view. If cities preserve the old and historic building, the environment will become more attractive and diverse. With such relaxing and enjoyable scenery, people would cherish the cities life more.

Historic building will attract tourist and benefit the tourism industry. No need to mention the Forbidden City and the loyal garden in Peking, marking the unique identity of the city, there are more and more tourists would to explore the cities to search for nongovernmental ancient building. It is such a pleasure to stay in Qing Dynasty yard to imagine how people spend their lives two hundred years ago or visit famous people’s living place and hear the tour guide to talk about interesting anecdotes.

Furthermore, historic place would be meaningful for historical education. If student could visit the archeological sites often, the knowledge on history books would be more real and the learning process will be more interesting.

Taking into account all the factors, we may safely come to the conclusion that a city should preserve the old historical building for city identity, tourism attraction and historical education.

TOEFL listening discussions: Where does this conversation most likely take place?