Could you help me to refine my compositon?thanks for your kind help!?

Question

Topic:Many old buildings are protected by law because they are part of a nation's history.However,some people think they shoule be destroyed to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices.To wha extent do you agree of disagree.

In present-day and society,many old architecture such as buildings has become an essencial symbol of a place,and nearly everyone agrees in the principle that historic buildings carry cultural,educational,or artistic value,when it comes to whether there's buildings should be preserved,People hold divergent ideas.some people contend these buildings need to be pulled down to creat ample room for new constructions as we city dwellers are lack of houses and offices.Personally,there's an element of truth in both these opinions.

Admittedly,some old buildings have already lost their utilitarian value.there's no need for government to go on preserving them.Not only cannot such buildings provide us with boons ,but also they'll occupy too much vacant space in which new constructions should be proposed,and impair the image of our city, eventually impede the advancement of our society.

However,as for some old buildings in historic sites.It's imperative for government to keep them alive without destructions,as they are a valuable part of our cultural heritage.Another consideration in this case is that these old buildings holding profound cultural merit could attract many tourists and therby boost the economy of the city,which will in the end benefit both residents and the tourists.

Simply but,I conced that the demolition of some historic buildings is inevitable in the progress of urban development.However,for the historical interests,goverment is suppposed to take effective measures to keep them alive,because they are the represent for accumulated wisdom of human beings.

Answer 1

In present day society old architecture, including buildings, have become essential symbols of various places. People view the principles that historic buildings carry as cultural, educational, and artistic; however, when it comes to deciding whether or not these buildings should be preserved society's views diverge. Some contend these buildings need to be pulled down to create new spaces for construction in cities where citizens currently lack space for housing and businesses. Others believe that these little pieces of history should be maintained to preserve the history of the society. There is an element of truth to both opinions.

Admittedly, some historic buildings have already lost their utilitarian value and there is no longer a need for the government to continue to preserve them. These buildings occupy land in which new buildings can be built. By allowing them to stand empty and unkept they impair the image of a city and impede the advancement of that society. However, it is imperative for the government to restore and keep certain historic strcutures as they are a valuable part of society's history. Those buildings that hold profound cultural merit could attract many tourists thereby boosting the economy of the city, which then benefits both the residents and the tourists.

While the demolition of some historic buildings is inevitable for the progress of urban development, for historical interests the government should take effective measures to restore and maintain historic structues that directly pretain to the history of the socieety as they represent the accumulated wisdom of human beings.