Should old buildings be preserved?
Not everyone agrees that looking after heritage sites is worthwhile.
Crumbling castles, ancient ruins and grand old stately homes – when it comes to heritage sites, the UK certainly has its fair share. However, the older they get, the harder it is to make sure they’re in good condition. In fact, some experts don’t think we should be trying to preserve them at all. Earlier this month, Professor Caitlin DeSilvey, from the University of Exeter, suggested that we need to “let go” of some of the country’s most famous heritage sites and landmarks, and let them “decay gracefully”. This is partly due to the hefty cost of preserving these buildings, and partly because their conservation is made even tougher because of the effects of climate change and coastal erosion. However, there are many cultural heritage sites all over the world – the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids of Giza, for example – that could not be left to decay without causing public outrage. So should we try to protect heritage sites no matter how hard that may be?
Yes – they connect us to our past
In our rush to build taller skyscrapers and glitzy new shopping centres, we’re in danger of abandoning heritage sites that connect us to our past. Buildings and monuments from long ago offer a glimpse into history, and many people, particularly those living near them, love them dearly. These places might feature in old family photographs or cheer people up when they see them each day. They link us to past generations and help form a community’s – or a nation’s – identity. Mussenden Temple on Northern Ireland’s coast, for example, is considered to be so important that it might be taken down and rebuilt somewhere else, rather than allowing it to be destroyed by coastal erosion. Other sites provide valuable historical information and help us understand how people used to live. Can you imagine allowing the Tower of London to crumble away or Stonehenge to become covered in weeds?
No – it’s too expensive
We have to move with the times. After all, castles, monuments and stately homes are only buildings. It costs a lot of money to look after them, and that could be better spent. Addressing the needs of humans, for example by tackling poverty, is far more important than maintaining sites that are nice to look at, but aren’t essential. Besides, climate change and coastal erosion means that we will have to accept that we will lose many heritage sites that can’t survive forever. The Environment Agency estimates that more than 700 properties in England could be lost to coastal erosion by around 2030. We should enjoy them now, while we have them, but accept that our landscape will eventually change. Besides, there are other solutions, such as something called managed decay, which allows nature to take over heritage sites. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it’s simply the natural process of change.