El Futuro

* Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?
From my point of view if it is important to preserve the buildings with somehistorical significance, for several reasons: first of all, these old buildings are the history of this place, we can say or give an idea of what life was like in those days or good in the future, thatfuture generations will know how it was that we lived, not to mention that a city with historical significance is a city attraction and in turn activates the trade in that area, the best example we canget of our country are cities like Guanajuato, Queretaro, Mexico City, another city that particular I like is Real del Monte can say belongs to Pachuca, but to give it a more historical meaning nothinghas been changed and not located within the city, is a small village on a hill and below it begins to develop the city of Pachuca, or good is one of the points where the city part. Also as a futurearchitect, one of the areas of work is the assessment and restoration of buildings we can consider the historical, cultural or architectural, clear examples that we can see in our city are the rescueand reuse old buildings such as government offices . Not that I mean that I am against the modernization of the buildings, but it is a key point that the architects believe may be involved, i.e.architects are dedicated to planning and conservation of the environment and urban image, but if there were more available and better government support, could do better projects of the urban cities,sectioned by areas; residential, commercial, educational, and other types of activities and thus may preserve and rescue those buildings, but in turn provide opportunities the construction of modernbuildings, for example putting in Victoria if a sadness that being the capital is a city with so little activity, without many historical places to visit and great buildings without architectural icons...