The author claims that old and historic building should make place for new modern planners, that might use the ground for modern purpose. I mostly do not agree. It is essential to draw a line between essential historic buildings and just old ones. Where the most historic ones should be preserved, the old and historic not important should make place for new ones.
First, historic buildings are essential to preserving because they tell the history of its city or its nation. In Europe, one might see a lot of buildings that have been built a very long time ago. There are churches, castles, and public buildings, which have been built many years ago, for a specific reason. Those buildings still tell the history, what happened there. For example, the arc de Triumph in Paris has been built during Napoleon's time and stands for all the achievements of France during this time and for all the people who died for the expansion of the French Empire. Also, the Alhambra in Granada, Spain, has been built by the Arabs during the time they lived in Spain. To destroy these buildings to modernize a city would be a huge loss for the nation and the following generations.
Further, historic buildings should be preserved to keep in mind the mistakes we have done in the past and some have been built as memorials. It would be a disaster if the ruins of the concentration camp in Auschwitz would be destroyed to build up a new village there. Like Auschwitz, historic constructions might help us realize how so bad thing could have happened and therefore should stand as a lesson to do everything possible to prevent events like this. Also, the place where the twin towers in New York City stand should be preserved from renewing. Ground Zero is a memorial for all the people who died in 9/11, and although space is rare in Manhattan, this place should be preserved. It is a memorial for all the people who died, and it is a symbol to fight against terrorism.
There are some circumstances where modern renovation is legitimized. Some old buildings that do not represent such an important part of a city´s history like the example above should make a new modern purpose. The world population is growing, and we are becoming more and more people who need a place to live and work. It would be counterproductive to preserve every old building. City planning should precede and continuously improve the city. Therefore, some old buildings that do not stand for an essential historical event should occur for the progress of city development.
In essence, there is a big difference between old buildings and historical ones. As long as the historic buildings and creations represent a specific and important city event, it should be preserved. When the building does not serve such a purpose and is old and not safe anymore, it should make new buildings.