Many old buildings are protected by law because they are part of a nation's history. However, some people think old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices.
How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
Almost in every country, there are some buildings which reflect the history of the nation through its age or outlook. However, in some countries buildings like those are not well looked after. Because of this, some people claim that they should be replaced by new ones in order to fulfil the inhabitants' needs of house and office. In my opinion, every nation should protect those buildings by law and maintain them.
First, those historical buildings cannot be treated as simple structures. No matter how useless they are, they symbolise the identity of the nation they belong to. Those which are protected by law are mostly the ones who has been through wars and seen through centuries. They can bring the visitors back to those years they were built. Morever, sometimes they are the reason why the country is visited by a large number of tourists. In Germany, there are numerous buildings that is protected by the government although they are located in an area where the population is high, nevertheless, they are used neither as housing nor business operation.
Second, there are many examples of historical buildings that are converted into offices or residential housing after restoration. There is no logical reason to replace those buildings by new ones as long as restoration is possible. Also those buldings can be used as museums by the aid of government funding.
Governments should not let those buildings be knocked down by private individuals or companies. As it is mentioned before, those buildings reflect the history of the nation, the wars they have stood through, regardless of victories or loses. Replacing those buildings with new ones may be a temporary solution for inhabitants but will certainly be the loss of a part of history permanently.
In conclusion, I believe that governments should look for new areas to provide housing and office for people, instead of knocking down buildings that reflect the history of a nation.
Yeah, you've got the right idea -- clear thesis, body paragraphs with logical supporting examples, short and to-the-point conclusion. Mostly now you just need to polish the grammar and style. For instance:
"there are numerous buildings that are protected"
Also, try to avoid using sentence structures that rely on "there is," "there are," "it is," and "it was." Stylistically, such sentences are always weak, even if they are grammatically correct.
"there are some buildings which reflect the history of the nation through its age or outlook"
"some buildings reflect the history of the nation through their age or appearance. "
"there are many examples of historical buildings that are converted into offices or residential housing after restoration"
"many historical buildings can be converted into offices or residential housing after restoration"
You see how the phrase "there are" in both examples just takes up unnecessary space.
