Some people believe that building modern skyscrapers by destroying old buildings is beneficial, while others tend to think that instead of doing this, we could reserve them and keep better. Although, the old buildings are mostly vulnerable and the modern buildings can be a sufficient use of land since they have more living place, they can hold historical significance and we have a bunch of techniques that we can learn from ancient monuments. In my opinion, we should destroy them depending on their historical significance or combine them with modern architecture.
On the one hand, many contemporary buildings are skyscrapers so it would be more beneficial in terms of land use. In other words, with the increased demand for accommodation, governments can destroy the neglected houses and replace them with the apartment block which can have more living place.
In addition, many buildings built in the past are vulnerable to any elements. Because they were built with poor quality materials which were good for that time but for now, they are already outdated. For example, these buildings cannot tolerate to earthquake, so rather than preserving them we should replace them by more practical buildings.
On the other hand, many of them can hold cultural and historical significance. So, destroying them would be losing the chance to learn the history. Since, many of them have some patterns on the walls or ancient artefacts that can be processed through carbon-dating. As a result, we would know about their origin.
Moreover, by observing the architecture of the past we can learn some valuable points to consider. In other words, in the past there were more nimble handed masters and architects who had some exceptional skills and knowledge, so we can learn how they constructed a particular building. For example, ancient pyramids, they were built a long time ago but we can still see them today and it can tell us that in the past the architecture was better in some point.
However, I would argue that we reconstruct old buildings according to their historical significance. I mean, we should decide whether to keep or destroy the old buildings depending on what benefits they can give. For example, we can totally cut down the numbers of buildings built in this century as they mostly do not contain any valuable facts. Instead, we can preserve those buildings which were constructed a long time ago. Secondly, we can combine our new infrastructure with them. In other words, we can have some refurbishments there and we can continue constructing new multi-storey skyscrapers on the top of them.
In conclusion, despite that with the growing population it is necessary to destroy some of the old infrastructure which are vulnerable, they can hold some valuable historical information and can be preserved to better learn the architecture of the past. Personally, I think it is better to destroy them depending on their significance or combining them with our new architecture.