It is obvious that the main responsibility of the government is to carry

out the process of urbanization. The issue of whether the policy of cities

to regulate the old buildings will affect living security and city identity is

under continuous debate.

Supporters of demolishing the old buildings believe that has positive

effects on the safety of citizens. A large number of out dated

architectures have gone through a long time and the original materials

would be rotten or damaged like moods or rocks. It brings the problem

about how long the materials could last, whether they will make the

buildings collapse and pose a threat to pedestrians. Thus, modern

buildings totally replacing the dangerous buildings is a nice choice to

save the regulating money and time.

However, other citizens are worried about the lack of historical and
cultural value of cities, if the decision pushing down most of

characteristic old-fashion architectures is fulfilled. In old houses, lots of

patterns and unique features are preserved, like powerful lions and

Baroque balconies, which shows lifestyle and favors of ancient people in

the cities. These characteristics that reflect the differences between

cities may attract people from other areas to travel and it means that

money spent on managing old buildings will be earned back in tourism

In my opinion, the combination of both sides states reasonable ideas.

On the one hand, if the old buildings is located in the dangerous places

which are easy to hurt passers-by, they should gain some necessary

managements to ensure the safety of persons, even could be rebuilt

when they are entirely damaging. On the other hand, as old-fashion

buildings have some specific history stories and special living items,

they should be held in order to save common memories of ancient

cities and develop the tourism.