Isn’t it a kind of disrespect to thousands of years of history to call historical buildings that reflect the history, culture and existence of a city just a building? If I were to answer this question, my answer would undoubtedly be yes. Those buildings once witnessed a fascinating history that none of the people who are still alive today have seen in person.
According to some, these structures are a waste of space, and if you ask them, it is more correct and logical to erect structures that are more useful but have no aesthetic beauty. One of the most powerful theses put forward by people who argue that it is an undeniable fact that the structures to be developed by modern architecture will be more useful compared to the past is: to eliminate the increasing need for space with increasing population.
The more traditional group, on the other hand, argues that these buildings are not just ordinary structures in which people live, study or work, but rather an aesthetic art. People who believe that preserving architecture is the same as preserving art, see it as their duty to protect the heritage of past civilisations and kingdoms. According to traditionalist art lovers, there is no need to damage architectural structures, which are a perfect combination of history and art, in order to solve the problem of the increasing need for space, this need for space can be eliminated by using the already vacant spaces in the city.
Of course, there is no single truth in this disagreement between modern innovators and traditional art lovers. The question to be asked is this: While adapting to the innovations of the 21st century, can we not preserve the heritage of past civilisations?
