Don’t Mourn It, Reborn It!
12 reasons destroyed cultural heritage sites and tourist attractions should always be rebuilt
- Cultural heritage should always be preserved.
- Communities have the right to their own identity.
- It would benefit cultural continuity.
- It would prevent the “out of sight, out of mind” problem.
- It would drive global unity.
- Reconstruction is good for the economy.
- Certain sites’ restorations present environmental benefits.
- Rebuilt sites hold educational value.
- It would benefit modern creativity.
- We live in the technological age.
- It would help level the tourism “playing field”.
- There is no such thing as a fair removal.
When a cultural landmark, historic building, or natural wonder is lost, a part of our shared human story disappears. These sites connect people across time, geography, and belief. Their destruction, whether through war, disaster, neglect, natural processes, or accident, is a blow to our collective identity.
Destroyed tourist and heritage sites deserve to be reconstructed wherever humanly possible; doing so should be standard international protocol. Today, in the 21st century, we have the technology, resources, and global communication networks to ensure that destruction needs not be permanent.
Ideally, someone with the means to do so would start a politically neutral charity devoted to restoring heritage sites and tourist attractions around the world. It could recruit both paid workers and volunteers, or possibly only volunteers.
One possible roadblock is setting limitations on what qualifies as a “tourist attraction”. My idea is to restrict the definition to entities that a significant number of people would like to see restored, with local residents’ opinions carrying increased weight. Perhaps demand from 10,000 people in the local area or 100,000 worldwide should be considered sufficient to merit reconstruction.
It would also be necessary to include some exceptions. For racial equality reasons, the list of candidate sites for reconstruction should exclude statues of certain formerly celebrated people. And for another example, no one should try to rebuild New Jersey’s infamously dangerous Action Park; in its 18 years of operation, it saw at least six fatalities and thousands of hospitalizations.
Below are 12 compelling reasons for reconstruction, supported by examples of past successes, ongoing restorations, and future opportunities for sites to rise anew!
Reason 1: Heritage preservation
When a cultural site is lost, a piece of humanity vanishes with it. Restoration helps combat the erasure of cultural identity, for the benefit of future generations. Most agree that a replica of a lost site is better than nothing, and there are historical examples to prove it.
Replicas, when clearly identified, do not diminish the importance of the original site. Rather, they amplify it by making its story accessible to more people.
Sites that have been restored:
- Warsaw’s Old Town was rebuilt after WWII, and is now a UNESCO site.
- Hiroshima Castle was rebuilt in 1958.
- Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Stari Most (Mostar Bridge) was destroyed in 1993 during the Croat-Bosniak War. It was rebuilt in 2004 and is now a UNESCO site again.
- An especially notable example is the Old Bridge of Konitsa in Greece. Repaired multiple times since its original construction in the 1800s, it demonstrates how heritage can survive if continuously restored.
Restoration in progress:
- After Notre Dame Cathedral caught fire in 2019, restoration work began almost immediately, with completion expected in 2026. One of the world’s most famous examples!
Sites that should be restored:
- The Buddhas of Bamiyan, dismantled by the Taliban in 2001, represent a significant cultural and religious loss. Given Afghanistan’s instability, they should be reconstructed in a different country.
- The Temple of Bel in Palmyra, Syria, was destroyed by ISIS in 2015. It could stand again as a testament against cultural destruction.
Reason 2: Community identity
Broken places remind us of trauma; restored ones allow us to move forward. Restored landmarks reinforce a community’s unique identity and instill a sense of pride, serving as symbols of resilience and hope. Restoring beloved landmarks can provide emotional healing and psychological comfort to communities grieving their loss, reinforcing a sense of normalcy while showing the ability to overcome obstacles.
Restored:
- Detroit’s Michigan Central Station stood abandoned for decades, a symbol of the city’s decline. Its recent restoration as a community hub has reignited pride among locals.
- The Frauenkirche in Dresden rose again after WWII bombings, using many of its original stones.
Should be restored:
- The Anhalter Bahnhof in Berlin was once one of Europe’s grandest train stations. A reconstruction would revive a powerful symbol of Berlin’s 19th-century cosmopolitanism and reconnect the city with its railway heritage.
Borderline case:
- Niger’s Lone Tree of Ténéré (the only tree within a 400 km radius) was hit by a drunk driver in 1973. The tree’s remains are on display at Niger’s national museum in Niamey. Its former site is marked by a metal tree sculpture, which has become a local attraction in itself. Attempts to plant a new tree in its place have failed due to inconsistent watering. Oversight by a global charity may be the solution, not only for planting a new tree in Ténéré, but also for completing the Great Green Wall, part of which would fall within 400 kilometres of the site.
Reason 3: Cultural continuity
Civilizations are built on continuity. Leaving a site destroyed is like tearing a chapter out of the history books. Rebuilding fills that gap, allowing a community’s story to continue unbroken. Again, rebuilding is part of the process of healing, and this holds true not only for human emotions but also for communities.
Restored:
- Berlin’s Reichstag was burned in 1933 and reconstructed in 1948.
- The Royal Castle in Warsaw was demolished in 1944 and rebuilt between 1971 and 1984.
Restoration in progress:
- After the 2011 earthquake in New Zealand, Christchurch Cathedral’s reconstruction became a rallying point for recovery.
Should be restored:
- In 2013, De-Mar’s Stone Company demolished the Mayan pyramid at Nohmul, Belize. The company was fined for the incident, but so far, there seems to be no plan in place to rebuild the structure.
- Entire districts of Aleppo, Syria, and Sanaa, Yemen have been reduced to rubble by war. Rebuilding these districts could restore a sense of continuity for displaced families once peace is secured.
Reason 4: Prevention of cultural amnesia
Sites that are left neglected can fade from memory. Reconstruction keeps their stories alive. When ruins are left untended, or when destruction is accepted as final, whole stories risk slipping into obscurity. Reconstruction is a safeguard against cultural amnesia. It transforms fragile memories into living spaces where lessons and legacies can be taught anew. History does not need any more misconceptions than it already has!
Restored:
- Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London was demolished in 1644. Reconstruction began in 1970, and the rebuilt theatre opened in 1997.
Restoration in progress:
- Babylon, Iraq, has seen some restoration, but further work could revive this cradle of civilization.
Should be restored:
- Rebuilding the six destroyed Ancient Wonders would not be “wondrous” by modern technological standards, but even so, it would undoubtedly make millions of people happy. They have already had detailed digital models built, so physical replicas seem like the next logical step.
Reason 5: Global unity
Tourism fosters cultural exchange and mutual understanding, which can promote peace and cooperation among different communities and nations. Similarly, rebuilding iconic sites can and should become a global effort, symbolizing shared commitment and global unity. Engaging people in rebuilding efforts fosters an international sense of solidarity and encourages volunteerism.
Conversely, politics have foiled some reconstruction attempts. But even so, proposed reconstructions highlight the global interest in reclaiming what’s been lost. Increased awareness is all this mission needs!
Restoration in progress:
- Efforts to restore large portions of the Amazon rainforest have been hindered by the priorities of Brazil’s government and international policies. A politically neutral organization would make strides without such constraints.
- The Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq, was severely damaged by recent conflicts, but has seen international efforts for its restoration. UNESCO’s “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” project invites people from around the world to participate in reconstructing not only the mosque but also the surrounding city. Restoration projects can inspire community service on a global scale, helping volunteers connect with one another over a shared mission.
- Angkor Wat, Cambodia’s famous temple complex, is in the process of being restored. Restoration began in 1908 under French rule, and has been supported by international teams.
Should be restored:
- The restoration of Great Zimbabwe has been prevented by lack of funding and political disputes over ownership. A neutral organization could mediate the process.
Reason 6: Economic benefits
Heritage sites are not only vessels of culture but also major economic engines. Tourist attractions generate significant economic activity, creating jobs, boosting local businesses, attracting investment into the area, and supporting industries such as hospitality, crafts, and transportation. When a landmark is lost, so too are countless livelihoods. Rebuilding helps restore those flows of income, sparking recovery after disaster or war. The financial return on investment can be immense, not only for locals but also for national economies.
Restored:
- Pompeii, buried by Mount Vesuvius, was rediscovered and has since been carefully restored. Due to its status as a “snapshot” of Roman life, it draws millions of visitors annually.
Should be restored:
- The destruction of New York City‘s iconic Pennsylvania Station continues to generate regret. While the actual subway station remains, the aboveground structure was demolished in 1963 to make way for the Madison Square Garden arena, which opened in 1968. A reconstruction of the station (elsewhere, of course) would certainly be popular.
Reason 7: Environmental benefits
Some reconstruction projects would go hand-in-hand with environmental restoration efforts, helping to rehabilitate surrounding ecosystems and promote sustainability. Rebuilt sites can be designed with sustainability in mind, minimizing environmental impact and promoting eco-friendly tourism practices. Restored heritage districts often promote walkability, public transport, and eco-tourism, all of which lower carbon footprints.
Restored:
- Efforts to restore Machu Picchu have included ecosystem preservation.
- In Iceland, rebuilding trails and signage after volcanic eruptions often includes reforestation and soil restoration.
Restoration in progress:
- The Aral Sea supported vibrant communities and ecosystems, until it started shrinking due to Soviet-era irrigation. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have begun restoration projects, but their efforts remain underfunded.
- Some of Southeast Asia’s mangrove forests have been restored. Large-scale restoration is an ongoing challenge.
Should be restored:
- Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, a natural wonder suffering at the hands of climate change, offers unique volunteer and research opportunities. Programs involving reef restoration, coral planting, and marine biodiversity conservation could benefit from international participation and awareness, giving people a hands-on role in rebuilding and protecting these fragile ecosystems.
- The destruction of forests around the Mount Kenya region for agriculture threatens eco-tourism. Restoring these areas could reinvigorate the local economy.
Reason 8: Educational benefits
Rebuilt sites offer accessible educational resources for schools, researchers, and the public, fostering learning about history, culture, and architecture. The world deserves the best possible educational resources.
Replicating destroyed works of art and destroyed artifacts presents even greater educational and cultural benefits; it is possible for multiple replicas of the same item to be displayed in different museums and galleries around the world. As long as all of said replicas are clearly identified as such, there are no downsides whatsoever!
Restored:
- The cave paintings in Lascaux, France, and Altamira, Spain, have been sealed off to protect them from tourists. Replicas of each have been created for the public to enjoy.
- Destroyed in WWII bombings, Coventry Cathedral was deliberately left partly in ruins alongside a newly built cathedral. This pairing served to symbolize resilience and reconciliation.
Restoration in progress:
- Petra, an ancient city in Jordan, has been described by UNESCO as “one of the most precious cultural properties of man’s cultural heritage”. Restoration and conservation efforts are ongoing.
Should be restored:
- Museums are invaluable educational resources, and as such, their closures should only ever be temporary. In 2022, the Irish tourism board opted to close the Dublin Writers’ Museum permanently, saying it “no longer meets the expectation of the contemporary museum visitor in terms of accessibility, presentation, and interpretation”. Demand to have it reopened remains high. Ideally, the museum would be relocated to a more accessible venue, with better explanations for exhibits as needed.
Reason 9: Artistic benefits
For certain sites, reconstruction demands traditional craftsmanship, contributing to the preservation of endangered trades. Furthermore, not all reconstructions are exact; some blend old with new to inspire fresh cultural achievements.
Sites that have been faithfully restored using traditional skills:
- Warsaw’s Old Town restoration revived stone-carving and fresco techniques.
- St. Mark’s Campanile in Venice, which collapsed in 1902, was rebuilt “as it was, where it was”. The rebuild helped to keep stonemasonry alive.
Sites that have been creatively restored:
- Les Halles, Paris, consisted of two market halls until its closure in 1973. It was reimagined in 2010 as a partially underground shopping centre, the Westfield Forum des Halles. In 2016, an undulating canopy was added to the development.
- New York’s Twin Towers were replaced with the One World Trade Center, which has been praised for its modern design and structural innovations.
Reason 10: Technology
With today’s advanced technology, reconstructing destroyed sites is easier than ever before. Not only that, but reconstruction allows the use of modern technology and methods. This means the process could double as a showcase for innovation and engineering marvels.
Restored:
- After its destruction in 2015, Syria’s Palmyra Arch was replicated via 3D printing and digital models, a beautiful demonstration of how modern technology can revive iconic landmarks.
Restoration in progress:
- Digital models and laser scanning are being used for the ongoing restoration of the Great Wall of China.
Should be restored:
- Many destroyed natural formations, such as Prince Edward Island’s Teacup Rock, have had 3D models made using Blender or similar computer programs. Following its collapse in September 2022, Teacup Rock saw memorial art and numerous petitions for its restoration, which has yet to happen. All the necessary technology exists, and there is certainly no shortage of public demand. The same goes for many other famous fallen formations, such as:
- New Brunswick’s Elephant Flowerpot (also collapsed in 2022)
- England’s Birmham Stones (collapsed 2018)
- Malta’s Azure Window (2017)
- Morocco’s Arch of Lezgira (2016)
- Oregon’s Duck Bill Rock (2016)
- Australia’s Wedding Cake Rock (2015)
- Utah’s Wall Arch (2008)
- Spain’s Dedo de Dios (2005)
- New Hampshire’s Old Man of the Mountain (2003)
Reason 11: Tourism disparity
Today, in the post-COVID world, a growing number of destinations are facing overtourism. Rebuilding certain destroyed sites may mitigate this problem, especially considering the fact that some of said sites may have to be rebuilt far from their original locations.
Conversely, reconstruction can help economically disadvantaged areas to regain competitiveness. Some countries or regions that have lost attractions are attracting fewer visitors than they used to.
Even some non-destroyed sites could be replicated elsewhere, in order to thin out the crowds. Several countries and cities are working to protect their heritage sites from both destruction and overtourism, which often overlap. In cases such as this, replicas could easily coexist with the original. Said replicas should be far enough from their respective genuine articles that one cannot be seen from the other.
Restored:
- In October 2019, Denmark’s Rubjerg Knude Lighthouse was saved in an amazing way. It was going to collapse into the North Sea due to erosion, but a team of experts and volunteers put the lighthouse on wheels and rails to move it 80 metres inland.
Should be restored:
- London’s Crystal Palace was built in 1851 and burned down in 1936. Its former site houses a stadium and a park. Rebuilding the Crystal Palace elsewhere could attract some tourists away from the city.
- For overtourism reasons, Japan is making efforts to encourage its visitors to travel to areas other than Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka. One possible partial solution would be to replicate these cities’ destroyed sites elsewhere. This includes Frank Lloyd Wright’s Imperial Hotel, which operated in Tokyo from 1923 to 1967, and was subsequently dismantled.
Not destroyed but should be replicated:
- The Leaning Tower of Pisa sees thousands of visitors a day, with hours-long lines to get in. Many tourists have deemed the tower “not worth it” due to the long wait.
A special case:
- Damage is an iconic part of some existing sites. This includes the Colosseum (in Rome, Italy), the Parthenon (in Athens, Greece), and the Great Pyramid and Great Sphinx (both in Giza, Egypt). Some want complete restorations of these sites, to show how (we believe) they once looked. Most people, however, would rather the sites were left as they are now. The ideal solution is to build an “undamaged” replica of each one, to coexist with the actual sites.
Reason 12: Fairness to future generations
Cultural and natural landmarks belong to humanity as a whole, transcending national or political boundaries. Ideally, they would be protected from ever being destroyed or neglected, as this contradicts public interest and is blatantly a negative change. True justice would mean having only positive changes in the world.
You might think fairness simply means voting on whether to remove something, but I disagree. Even putting it to a worldwide public referendum would not be a fair way to decide. Future generations cannot advocate for themselves, nor are their opinions predictable. Therefore, there is simply no such thing as a fair removal. As temporary custodians of nature and human culture, it is important that we act with humility and foresight.
In short, tourist attractions and heritage sites should never be removed or destroyed. They belong to the entire human race, not just the currently living. Complete justice would include rebuilding as many destroyed sites as possible, a move which would be appreciated by the present generation as well as future ones
Appendix: Why a Politically Neutral Charity?
1) Transparency and Trust: By being politically neutral, it would not alienate potential supporters.
2) Global Appeal: Neutrality attracts donors and volunteers by emphasizing shared values over divisive politics.
3) Focus on Mission: Staying neutral would ensure that the charity’s resources are dedicated to the preservation and restoration of heritage, rather than political or bureaucratic disputes.
4) Prohibitive Costs: Many museums and other attractions have been closed for cost reasons, despite public demand. (And to my knowledge, none of their closures have ever come up for a fair public review, not even years after the fact.) Lawmakers have also voted against rebuilding some destroyed buildings and natural formations for cost reasons. Cases such as this are where a volunteer- and donation-run global charity could truly work wonders; those costs need not remain prohibitive!
5) Disaster Response Speed: Governments often take years to decide on funding. A neutral charity could mobilize resources immediately after destruction, reducing the chance that a site is abandoned due to bureaucratic delays.
6) Global Crowdfunding Model: Much like how Kickstarter campaigns attract global backers for creative projects, a dedicated platform could do the same for heritage restoration, giving ordinary people a say in which sites are prioritized. By relying on volunteer efforts and donations, these projects can achieve meaningful results with minimal administrative overhead, directly benefitting the communities and global citizens they serve.
Conclusion
Every landmark lost is a wound to our shared memory. Every reconstruction is proof that humanity refuses to forget. Just as the Red Cross responds to human emergencies, a World Heritage Restoration Corps could respond (non-urgently, of course) to sites in need of reconstruction. Humanity deserves no less. Leaving sites destroyed benefits no one.
thanks for info.