The headline of a Jan. 20 New York Times article reads, “ISIS Destroys Part of Roman Theater in Palmyra, Syria.” Unfortunately, over the last few years, we have seen a bevy of such news stories coming from the Middle East. The Islamic State’s rampage from Iraq to Syria has not only taken the lives of many but has also destroyed some of the world’s great architectural and art marvels.

This destruction of monuments is not a new phenomenon. ISIS is following in the footsteps of some infamous groups who have destroyed many buildings throughout history: The Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in 2001, the Nazis destroyed cultural buildings in Poland in World War II and invaders left Rome in ruins during the Sack of Rome in 410 AD.

In dialogue regarding the destruction of architecture, discussion of monuments and common spaces are equally important; the razing of villages and everyday residential buildings that people occupy should be discussed in conjunction with the destruction of ancient monuments.

But why are certain architectural monuments destroyed while others are spared? Looking through history, architectural monuments have been razed for several reasons, one of which is war itself. World War II and the extensive bombing of London left several iconic buildings, such as Christ Church, in ruins. Similarly, the German city of Dresden was totally destroyed.

Another reason attackers may destroy monuments or culturally significant buildings is to reduce the other side’s morale. The Nazis, for instance, razed Warsaw to the ground in 1944 to wipe out Polish cultural heritage after the failed Warsaw Uprising of 1944, according to an April 22, 2016 article in the Guardian. This act of revenge by the Nazis after the Polish resistance was planned meticulously to destroy buildings such as certain churches and palaces that represented Polish identity.

The same is true for the wars between the Romans and Carthaginians; the Romans destroyed the city of Carthage and sold its inhabitants into slavery to prevent any further resistance from the Carthaginians.

Another cause of destruction, one that is controversial among both liberals and conservatives alike, is motivated by a desire to destroy or severely harm religions. In India, the destruction of Babri Masjid, a Muslim mosque, in 1992 by Hindu nationalists is viewed by the liberal and secular voices through a light similar to the one ISIS portrays — destruction of cultural heritage as an attack on religion.

ISIS’ destruction of ancient monuments is not new. Their destruction of such iconic monuments, such as Baal Shamin or the Roman Theatre, is brutal, but more discussion on the destruction of entire residential buildings or villages is more important — this is the destruction of lives, art and architecture, as well.

Entire villages have been destroyed; residential and office buildings in Mosul, Aleppo and many other cities have been obliterated beyond recognition. This has led to loss of lives. Ancient monuments, however, are the focus of attention on social media, as has been the case with Baal Shamin or the Roman Theater, according to an Aug. 24, 2015 article in The Guardian. A quick Google search of “destruction of common buildings in Syria” and we get a collection of articles on the ancient monuments of Syria. It is justified that we are outraged, but why do we not show the same outrage over the destruction of common buildings?

Some might argue that these ancient monuments will never be reconstructed the way modern buildings can. But can either really be reconstructed? These are people’s homes or workplaces — entire lives were built at the sites of those buildings. Now, they are gone.

The words of twentieth-century French architect Le Corbusier reflect the importance of modern architecture for the common people. In his book “Vers une Architecture,” or “Towards an Architecture,” Le Corbusier wrote the following: “The architecture of today concerns itself with the house, with the ordinary and common house for normal and common men. It lets palaces alone. Here is a sign of the times.”

Contrary to Le Corbusier’s words, architecture of today does not leave “palaces alone.” Common spaces in connection with lives of people have not yet become a constant dialogue, as witnessed on social media. Why is that? The destruction of common places has become a norm in Syria whereas the razing of ancient monuments, such as Roman or Greek temples, is an attack on both Western values as well as tourism.

After all, one reason ISIS destroys so many ancient monuments is to combat their view of the West, according to the art historians who authored “The Demise and Afterlife of Artifacts.” ISIS sees tourism and the West as one, and the ancient monuments as foreign elements.

Reading through articles on the destruction of Syria’s ancient monuments, one gets the sense that our main concern is with the “erasure of Syria’s history,” as a Sept. 2, 2015 article in the Guardian put it. This is a concern, but it should not be the main one. Though it is true that these ancient monuments are an important part of Syria's history, we need to focus more on the present and how lives right now are being affected. We need to shift our focus, because if we continue to worry about the past, there may be no future.

I am not proposing stopping coverage or lessening outrage over the destruction of ancient monuments. Instead, I want to point out what we need to add: concern for the destruction of common spaces in addition to concern for the destruction of monuments. For what is architecture and art if it does not “[concern] itself with the house, with the ordinary and common house for normal and common men”?