ISSUE26 老建筑让位新需求【求拍，有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

TOPIC: ISSUE26 - "Most people would agree that buildings 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."
WORDS: 545
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2010-3-21 20:42:24

Should historic building be given precedence to serve contemporary needs? To answer this question, we should at least consider two factors. The first is that whether the so-call "contemporary needs" must be met at the cost of historic building. The second is that whether the historic buildings have historical value and can be turned to other use.

If the basic living requirements are involved in the so-called "contemporary needs" and there are no other alternative ways to meet these needs, I agree that modern development should be given precedence. After all, the importance of survival is superior to anything. For example, if there is a city where its citizens have no place to live because a disastrous earthquake destroyed their houses, the government should let the citizens live in the only undamaged building--a historic church. Under such situation, to save the citizens' lives is the foremost task and the preservation of historic building can be postponed when they have got through this disaster.

However, such extreme case happens rarely. Most of the so-called "contemporary needs" can be satisfied by adopting alternative methods. Consider a similar situation, the government plans to build a house for the elderly in the city center where stands a historic clock-tower built in the 16th century. Apparently, the house for elderly can be built in some suburban areas where the land is cheaper and the environment is more pleasant and quiet for elderly to live. In contrast, the clock-tower built five hundred years ago witnesses the changes in the city and records that period of history that the government should take better preservation of it. Another more attractive solution is to turn it into a visiting place, which the clock-tower can be preserved while the government can collect certain amount of revenue.

Some may argue that selling tickets of visiting old buildings may not be available in some situations, for instance, there is no entry to the building for it is a large square or a wall. But the value of those old buildings not only lies in the tourism usage, but also serves as the cultural image. The existence of the Colosseum aptly illustrates the point. The Colosseum, located in Rome, was used for gladiatorial contests and public spectacles when it was built. Although in the 21st century it stays partially ruined because of damage caused by devastating earthquakes and stone-robbers, the Colosseum is an iconic symbol of Imperial Rome and its breakthrough achievements in earthquake engineering. If such building is removed to satisfy the ground use of modern purposes, we are not be able to find or build another sight to vividly reveal the life at that time, and the stories of gladiators,

To sum up, if the contemporary needs mean the basic living requirements that cannot be met with alternative methods, the ground where the old buildings stand should be better used to guarantee the survival of citizens. However, other than this kind of extreme case, old buildings should be preserved at any situation. On one hand, they can be turned out to be remunerative tourism resort and make profits for the city. On the other hand, the greatest value of old building is related to its cultural symbol, which cannot be imitate or rebuild by contemporaries.

pomotoUID: 2797324

第一段貌似有点跑题，这里老建筑让位的意思不是转作他用，而是拆掉吧。这样就完全无法复原了。