[未归类] Issue26 我的作业（迟交了，很对不起）GOGOGO [复制链接]

happy_shirley
UID??2155516

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 15
寄托币: 1141
注册时间: 2005-11-7
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-3 19:08:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

[Issue26] :历史类
Most people would agree that building represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served.
大多数人都同意一个社会的建筑物代表了它有价值的历史纪录，但是当现代规划者们觉得这些以前的建筑物所占据的土地可以被更有价值的使用于新目的时，就产生了争议，现代发展应该比保留历史建筑物更受重视以便于满足眼下的需求。

现代化建设和历史建筑的保护应当视具体情况而定。
1、如果现代化建设能够满足更大的需要，带来更大的效益，那么可以牺牲一些古建筑，但如果并不能更好地满足
2、历史建筑有很大的价值，因此对于一些有重要意义的历史建筑应优先于现代建设需要，但一些并不是那么有历史意义的建筑，其优先性可以让位于社会急需发展的建筑项目。

Many developing countries are facing the controversy of whether government should give precedence to modern development over the preservation of historic buildings. The modern planners, in order to make good use of the limited ground, claim that modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic building. On the contrary, some people, especially the historians and artists, call on that the old buildings that represent a valuable record of our society’s past should be preserved. In my opinion, which interest should take precedence should be determined on a case-by-case basis and should account not only for practical and historic considerations but also artistic evaluations.

In determining whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider the community's current and anticipated utilitarian needs. For example, China Yangtze Three Gorges Project, as one of the biggest hydropower-complex project in the world, ranks as an important project with a lot of benefits for the southern of China including huge electric power providing to more than eleven provinces. However, to build the dam, some of the historic buildings alongside the river have to be destroyed. Comparing with the huge economic benefit and the improvement of ecological environment of Yangtze River areas, it is worthwhile to take the project precedence over the historic buildings. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retrofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.

Competing with a community's utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Many historic buildings are invaluable and play an important role in our modern life. For example, Notre Dame cathedral and Louvre Museum, they are notable buildings in Paris and have been emblems of Paris. The Forbidden City, located in Chinese capital Beijing and used to be the palaces of former Chinese rulers, is an famous open museum area and visited by people all over the world. The value of the above buildings have been beyond historic buildings, they represent a bygone era, play an essential role in the city's history, and bring huge economic benefit for traveling. In this case, it is worth to save the building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the building's history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that meets a compelling practical need.

In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, weighing the community's practical needs against the building's historic and aesthetic value.

Words：508

06年6G加入QQ群17938345！

回应
0

使用道具举报

加一
UID??2168628

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 794
注册时间: 2005-12-19
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2006-1-4 00:04:27 |只看该作者

Many developing countries are facing the controversy of whether government should give precedence to modern development over the preservation of historic buildings. The modern planners, in order to make good use of the limited ground, claim that modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic building. On the contrary, some people, especially the historians and artists, call on that the old buildings that represent a valuable record of our society’s past should be preserved. In my opinion, which interest should take precedence should be determined on a case-by-case basis and should account not only for practical and historic considerations but also artistic evaluations.这一句话里出现了三个should...尽量避免这种情况吧

In determining whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider the community's current and anticipated utilitarian needs. For example, China Yangtze Three Gorges Project, as one of the biggest hydropower-complex project in the world, ranks as an important project with a lot of benefits for the southern of China including huge electric power providing to more than eleven provinces. However, to build the dam, some of the historic buildings alongside the river have to be destroyed. Comparing with the huge economic benefit and the improvement of ecological environment of Yangtze River areas, it is worthwhile to take the project precedence over the historic buildings. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retrofit (这个词据说叫"花样翻新",呵呵,似乎不大好)might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.
长江三峡的例子很有说服力,佩服楼主的开阔思路.这个例子值得作为一个经典的example,用在别的文章中.

Competing with a community's utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Many historic buildings are invaluable and play an important role in our modern life. For example, Notre Dame cathedral and Louvre Museum, they (去掉)are notable buildings in Paris and have been emblems of Paris. The Forbidden City, located in Chinese capital Beijing and used to be the palaces of former Chinese rulers, is an famous open museum area and visited by people all over the world. The value of the above buildings have been beyond historic buildings, they represent a bygone era, play an essential role in the city's history, and bring huge economic benefit for traveling. In this case, it is worth to save the building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the building's history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that meets a compelling practical need.
我还是比较提倡古迹保护的,毕竟英国那边的房子都快塌了也不肯拆,一定要在里面杵个棍支着,尽管旁边的建筑物的风格也和它差不多.

In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, weighing the community's practical needs against the building's historic and aesthetic value.

使用道具举报