(Novice)’Many cities today have old buildings that are more than 100 or 200 years old. These buildings have withstood the test of time but have stopped serving their original purposes. Should the city try to preserve them or destroy them and replace them with something more modern? (Expert)’The argument made by the author of the above-quoted passage is that cities should preserve their historic buildings instead of demolishing them and replacing them with modern buildings. While it is true that some older buildings are still standing in various cities, this argument ignores the fact that some cities use historic buildings as space in which to launch modern skyscrapers. New York’s Time Square, for example, is wedged between older, grander buildings from earlier eras, yet it is only by carefully using these old structures as support that new skyscrapers like One World Trade Center, a modern skyscraper, can be erected. Modern construction in New York has largely relied on the numerous older structures that built it, and destroying these buildings would cause a huge financial setback for the city. Therefore, the city should preserve its older buildings instead of destroying them, even though the buildings are no longer being used as intended.

While the author is correct that, in many cases, older buildings can be preserved and used for various purposes, this argument is flawed. Many older buildings are no longer used as they were intended. Buildings, especially taller ones, are torn down to construct new ones. However, these modern skyscrapers do not look out of place, as the architects know how to incorporate elements of the original building into the new design. For example, the twin towers in One World Trade Center has windows reminiscent of those on the New York Stock Exchange building, which once stood at One World Trade Center’s location. Similarly, the facade of Manhattan’s Chrysler Building, which once stood at the same location, can be seen on One World Trade Center’s facade. These examples show that these modern skyscrapers are in no way inferior to the original buildings. Also, the demolition of the old structures is very expensive, and, as the author points out, demolishing them and replacing them with new structures puts a huge financial burden on the city. Therefore, using old buildings as support for other structures is much more efficient and economical for cities than demolishing them completely.

Interestingly, New York City is not the only city with this problem. San Francisco, for instance, is also dealing with the problem of preserving old buildings. In 2013, the city placed a moratorium on the demolition of any buildings built before 1950, and in 2015, it extended the moratorium to buildings built before 1960. The city is also cooperating with the Trust for Public Land to start purchasing and renovating older buildings so that they may be reused. The Trust for Public Land estimates that this could result in 15,000 jobs, and the city’s mayor, San Francisco’s Ed Lee, has expressed his support for these preservation measures. Therefore, cities need to realize that preserving old buildings is not simply a matter of sentimentality, as promoting tourism and preserving the city’s historical architecture are vital to a city’s economic productivity.