issue26 终于有勇气自己写一篇:P

YevgrafUID: 154550

26. "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."

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。

过去和现在之建筑物

1.建筑有历史/文化/艺术价值
2.建筑的价值不能精确衡量。但机会成本仍然存在
3.现代化过程中片面追求高速/追求近利都是发展不全面的表现。

Old buildings witness history. As time fleets, these buildings are destroyed or just collapsed, while their special inherent also disappeared without trace. The author mentioned that buildings are valuable historical record, but the true value of many old buildings is far beyond this. Not only do old buildings witness history and thereby they are precious legacy, but they have insubstitutable culture and arts value as well. Representative buildings of a certain history period, such as Notre Dame, the great pyramid, or the forbidden city, usually concentrate the acme of cultural achievements, some of which are so delicate that even the attempt of replicate them by modern technology is extremely difficult. Buildings that are more common, such as a block in Beijing, also provide us worthful historical information about customs, technology, architectural style, etc. Finally, it is obviously that the value of old buildings will even higher if they remain in the future.

However, although the value of old buildings is evident, it is difficult to be computed accurately, for the potential value of these buildings, which highly depends on the future development of the society, is unpredictable. Thereby, the real value of old buildings is usually extremely vague and unfortunately, usually underestimated. What is more, as the value of old buildings mainly concentrates on immaterial aspects, and because it is widely concerned that immaterial value cannot create substantial benefit for the development of economy, the shown value of old buildings is often conceived of less weight than equal substantial value, for instance, the land which is currently occupied by old buildings. Thereby, government officers often demolish old buildings and utilize the empty land for modernization development, even they understand that the vague opportunity cost may actually very high. Nevertheless, since the difficulty to evaluate old buildings is well-known, government officers are seldom criticized if they wrongly chose to destroy those historical heritages.

In fact, in a modern world admiring practice and speed, old buildings, which demonstrates humanism rather than the technical skill of architecture, is in some sense erecting like monsters and nearly doomed to be replaced by uniformed, practical utilities. The irremediable result of demolishment, however, is rarely concerned seriously. Ironically, it is usually after the destruction that people find they could have better choice. In early 1950's, the magnificent wall of Beijing was destroyed, bricks were all taken to pave new roads. Famous Chinese architect Liang-Sicheng opposed this plan and suggested a better choice for China capital, but people just thought he was outdated. After 50 years, it is finally concluded that the wall of Beijing worth over 30 billion dollars, and not until then do people start to regret for what they have done ignorantly, though everything is too late. That is, the excessive pursuit for rapid, economic development without fully concern of local culture characteristics is often proved shortsighted, though it is hard to be noticed before blunder is made.

In conclusion, I oppose the author's viewpoint. Contemporary needs can be served in various ways, and not each of which is necessarily incompatible with those old buildings, but the disappearance of a certain historical legacy is an eternal loss. When the offspring of us forget everything about their ancestor's "contemporary needs", those survived buildings are still there, silently witnessing history.

用word大概校对了一下，其他的就没想到改动了，不算提纲和检查用掉一小时整……

请各位指正，谢谢。

gdhdannyUID: 125843

Old buildings witness history. As time fleets, these buildings are destroyed or just collapsed, while their special inherent（inherence） also disappeared without trace. The author mentioned that buildings are valuable historical record, but the true value of many old buildings is far beyond this. Not only do old buildings witness history and thereby they are precious legacy, but they have insubstitutable(irreplaceable) culture and arts(cultural and artistic) value as well. Representative buildings of a certain history period, such as Notre Dame, the great pyramid, or the forbidden city, usually concentrate(on) the acme of cultural achievements, some of which are so delicate that even the attempt of replicate（replicating） them by modern technology is extremely difficult. Buildings that are more common, such as a block in Beijing, also provide us worthful（worthy） historical information about customs, technology, architectural style, etc. Finally(第一段就总结？), it is obviously(obvious) that the value of old buildings will(will be) even higher if they remain in the future.
这一段把题引和第一个论点放在一起，思路很新颖。我个人感觉从逻辑上讲应该先肯定历史价值，然后才是文化和艺术价值。其实这三方面可以展开写，论述在详细些，而不是简单一句话带过。比如北京的城砖，有多少年历史？见证过什么历史事件？所以才说它有历史意义。不过那样的话又显得首段过于冗长，所以还是建议把提出观点和第一个论点分述一下。

However, although the value of old buildings is evident, it is difficult to be computed accurately, for the potential value of these buildings, which highly depends on the future development of the society, is unpredictable. Thereby, the real value of old buildings is（are） usually extremely vague and(加个逗号吧) unfortunately, usually underestimated. What is more, as the value of old buildings mainly concentrates on immaterial aspects, and because it is widely concerned(believed) that immaterial value cannot create substantial benefit for the development of economy(个人感觉应该加个时间状语，不然就太绝对了，建筑的非物质价值可能在“短期内”不会受到经济回报), the shown(superficial) value of old buildings is often conceived of less weight than equal substantial value, for instance, the land which is currently occupied by old buildings（就一个名词作例子？）. Thereby, government officers often demolish old buildings and utilize the empty land for modernization development, even they understand that the vague opportunity cost may （be）actually very high. Nevertheless, since the difficulty to evaluate old buildings is well-known, government officers are seldom criticized if they wrongly chose to(就不用chose to了吧，直接wrongly destroy) destroy those historical heritages.
这段的论述就有点牵强了。提纲中的论点是“建筑的价值不能精确衡量。但机会成本仍然存在”，而在TS里只提到了前一方面，后面政府的举措更像是机会成本造成的无奈之举，把它用作证明机会成本的存在性就有点勉强了。

In fact, in a modern world admiring practice(pragmatism) and speed, old buildings, which demonstrates(demonstrate) humanism rather than the technical skill of architecture, is（are） in some sense erecting like monsters and nearly doomed to be replaced by uniformed, practical utilities. The irremediable result of demolishment, however, is rarely concerned seriously. Ironically, it is usually after the destruction that people find they could have better choice. In early 1950's, the magnificent wall of Beijing was destroyed, bricks were all taken to pave new roads. (the)Famous Chinese architect Liang-Sicheng opposed this plan and suggested a better choice for China capital(the capital of China), but people just thought he was outdated. After 50 years, it is finally concluded that the wall of Beijing worth（is worthy of） over 30 billion dollars, and not until then do people start to regret for what they have done ignorantly, though(but) everything is too late. That is, the excessive pursuit for rapid, economic development without fully concern of local culture(cultural) characteristics is often proved shortsighted, though it is hard to be noticed before blunder is made.

In conclusion, I oppose the author's viewpoint. Contemporary needs can be served in various ways, and not each of which（用了and前后就是两个并列句，and not each of them, 而且感觉说not all of them更好） is necessarily incompatible with those old buildings, but the disappearance of a certain historical legacy is an eternal loss. When the offspring of us forget everything about their ancestor's "contemporary needs", those survived buildings are still there, silently witnessing history.

看了你的提纲，感觉是一篇很有见地的文章。可在论证的过程中，作者似乎是在刻意追求一种意识流的写法，每段的内容并不是按照TS有的放矢的展开，而是层层推进，不知道ETS的判卷人又没有耐心去细细品味。