issue26 全面修改，期待指正！

菜丸子UID: 158771

ISSUE 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.

ISSUE的翻译：很多人都同意，古建筑是对一个社会的过往的珍贵记录，但是当现代的规划师觉得现存的古建筑可以被更好地用来服务现代社会时，争议产生了。在这样的情况下，现代发展应该优先于保留有历史价值的古建筑。

修正的地方：在和同专业的同学讨论了以后，我重新调整了一下自己的立场，把原来的完全否定改成了现在的样子：
我认为现代发展不应该优先于保留有价值的古建筑。但这并不代表着所有的现代发展都被古建筑所羁绊啊。
就比如清华大学的校园建筑，分为老区和新区，老区有一批优秀的古建筑，现代PURPOSE当然应该让位于古代建筑，但是新区的发展完全可以大刀阔斧、标新立异。
因此，我倾向于优先古建筑，折中后来一个“新旧分区讨论”。
改正以后，文章重点倾向于分析孰轻孰重的问题，摒弃关于后来的建筑师水平不够（当然不是这样说的，大概是这么个意思）的论证，把语气变得缓和了些，改正了DEZHI等人提出的一些语法上的错误。请大家多多指正！谢谢大家！

我的中英文提纲：
（1）一些所谓的现代利益的价值 无法同古建筑历史和美学的价值相提并论。
（2）一旦处理不好，现代的发展给古建筑带来的冲击是不可避免的。一些建立在牺牲有价值的古建筑的基础上的现代NEEDS，实际上没有给社会带来BENEFIT，只不过是暂时的NEEDS罢了。在处理古建筑的改建时和古城规划时，我们应当充分考虑现代的因素对美学和历史价值的破坏的可能性；
（3）我们也不得不承认，一些很少有历史和艺术价值的建筑可以通过改造来迎合现代的用途，以更好地实现它的价值。如三峡的移民区的民居，没有多大的价值，完全可以把它们拆了为水利事业服务，造福人类；（让步）
（4）IN ADDITION，城市规划的时候应该新旧区分开讨论，古建筑多、价值较高的地方应该是现代发展让位于保留古建筑，反之亦然。

(1)        First, some so-called modern values often cannot reach the same class of the historical values which the ancient buildings possess.
(2)        If treated inappropriately, it will inevitably bring irretrievable damage towards the old buildings. Some contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are in fact often temporary needs, rather than real benefits to the society.
(3)        Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made use of for contemporary purposes through reconstruction to realize its true value.
(4)        In addition, urban planners should divide the city into two parts. Where there are lots of valuable ancient architects, preservation of historic buildings should be given precedence over the contemporary needs.

正文如下：
There are so many ancient architectural masterpieces, like the St. Sophia Church, the Parthenon, the Egyptian Pyramids and so on, still standing on the earth, with their weathered but picturesque surfaces intriguing people's imagination of their once prosperity and fair stories. Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring to us, why not preserve and protect them from unnecessary damage from modern developments to their values? So I give my suspicion on the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings.

First of all, some so-called modern values cannot often reach the same class of the historical values that the ancient buildings possess. Though the old buildings existing nowadays are merely a minority, they could be perceived as vestiges of the ancient people, vivid descriptions of the days gone by. Their historical values could never be approached by some contemporary needs. The old architectural complex along the Venetian River is just an instance in case. By preserving the ancient district of Venetians, it shows people the scrolls of magnificent images. But if we turn that into a modern downtown on some commercial purposes, what we would gain is just some money which can be attained by other means, but what we would have been robbed is a whole case of treasure of the human civilization. Thus, some contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are in fact often temporary needs, rather than real benefits with respect to the whole society. In this case, shall we still give priority to contemporary developments?

Second, if treated inappropriately, it will inevitably bring irretrievable damage towards the old buildings and the ancient civilization. Once should the historic buildings be served for modern purposes, they would be, to some extent, running the risk of losing their initial charm and dignity. Just like Beijing's disappearing ancient walls on which several generations of dumb millions carved their grief during the war and happiness during the peaceful times, though it had witnessed the prosperities and comedowns of the whole city, they can only exist in the archive and textbooks now, replaced by some brand-new streets and icy skyscrapers, which could never essentially take the place of the ancient walls. No one can help to retrieve the lost precious treasure, even the famous Chinese architect, Sicheng Liang, who spent his rest of life calling for the preservation of the walls. Though it is now really a modern place where the poor walls had ever stood, what we have lost is much more than what we have gained. In order to meet those so-called contemporary needs, civilization of the human beings has really paid too much.

Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made use of for contemporary purposes through reconstruction to realize their true values. It is true that there are always mediocre old buildings occupying spaces and lands throughout the cities and countries. Under this circumstance, modern architects and planners should attach more importance to contemporary needs, rather than the preservation. Take the Three Gorges in China for example, in order to carry out this enormous water conservancy project which could accelerate modern economical progress, thousands of villages and towns with numerous old buildings in Western China had been pulled down. As the rural houses usually have little value for historic or artistic studies, wouldn’t a whole dismantlement for modern project do much damage, but rather do good deed to the development of the society.

In addition, with respect to the old buildings, urban planners should divide the ancient district into two parts. Where there are lots of valuable ancient architects, preservation of historic buildings should be given precedence over the contemporary needs, and on the contrary it is so on.

In sum, we should call for a balance between the contemporary development and the preservation of the historical-or-aesthetical-valued architectures, and consider about the whole condition regarding historical values and the meaning of the contemporary purposes.

lovebrianUID: 157127

接了~~马上改~~呵呵~~~~~~~ 什么时候考啊你？

菜丸子UID: 158771

3.28啊，还有最后五天，每天计划写一整篇ISSUE，一篇ARGUMENT，然后做10个ISSUE提纲，10个A提纲。
55555，真后悔，到最后一个星期才开始写作文。呵呵，谢谢狒狒大哥喔

lovebrianUID: 157127

ISSUE 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.

ISSUE的翻译：很多人都同意，古建筑是对一个社会的过往的珍贵记录，但是当现代的规划师觉得现存的古建筑可以被更好地用来服务现代社会时，争议产生了。在这样的情况下，现代发展应该优先于保留有历史价值的古建筑。

我的中英文提纲：
（1）建立在牺牲有价值的古建筑的基础上的现代NEEDS，实际上没有给社会带来BENEFIT，只不过是暂时的NEEDS罢了；(对社会的)
（2）很多针对珍贵的古建筑的改造都不能避免地给建筑的外表和它的美学价值带来一定的损伤，因为把它恢复到原貌是非常困难的，人们通常无法很好地理解建筑师创作他们的作品时的独特想法；（对建筑本身的）
（3）我们也不得不承认，一些很少有历史和艺术价值的建筑可以通过改造来迎合现代的用途，以更好地实现它的价值。（让步）

(1)The contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact just temporary needs, rather than a really benefit towards the society.

(2)Most reconstructions on purpose of contemporary usage towards the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards its appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its original style designed by the ancient architect who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on their own works.

(3)Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its value well.

正文如下：
There are so many ancient architectural masterpieces, like the St. Sophia Church, the Parthenon, the Egyptian Pyramids and so on, still standing on earth, with their weathered but picturesque surfaces intriguing people's imagination of its once prosperity and fair stories. Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring to us, why not preserving and protecting it from any damage to its value? So, I dispute the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings.

First, the contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact just temporary needs, rather than a really benefit towards the society. Once the historic buildings began being changed or demolished for modern purposes, they would be, to some extent, setting out their way of losing ever charm and dignity. Like the disappearing ancient walls in Beijing City, on which several generations of dumb millions carved their grief during the war and happiness during the peaceful times, had witnessed the prosperities and comedowns of the whole city, But they can only exist in the our archive and textbook now, replaced by some brand-new streets and skyscrapers. No one can retrieve those precious stones and records, even the famous Chinese architect, Sicheng Liang, who spent the rest of his life to call for the preservation of the walls. Though it is really a modern place where the poor walls had ever stood in, what we have lost is much larger than what we have gained. In order to meet those so-called contemporary needs. The whole society of the humanity has really paid too much.
（这一段从自身论证上没什么问题，挺好~~用词也漂亮~~但是不舒服就在于论点，为什么现代的需求就是没什么好处的呢？这个说法未免缺乏说服力，而且不太符合实际情况。我们拆城墙去建一所好大学的话，不是好事情吗？我认为应该从实际情况出发，就是指出现实中由于好多无谓的因素而破坏古建筑。）


Another reason why I don't agree with the comment above is that, most reconstructions on purpose of contemporary usage towards the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards its appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its original style designed by the ancient architect who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on their own works. Modern architects and constructors may never completely know how those great works came into being. What they can do towards the buildings is sometimes based on a superficial comprehension of the originator’s spirits. Thus, inappropriate addition or reduction is destructive unless done by the creator himself. What we ought strive to do is preserving the initial appearance of the buildings as much as possible, keeping them away from unnecessary damage from either natural or manual. Just like the Parthenon, the famous architecture built up in ancient Greece, is now preserved well wholly in the museum, leaving the original site a replica. By this way, the valuable building is saved and at the same time, people can experience its aesthetic value while being kept away from damaging the antique both in the museum and in the initial site.
（在讲对古建筑的修复不能达到预期的效果。我认为与题目稍微擦边，有些跑。原因见我文末总结）

Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its value well. Those buildings, though having beared a long age, granted no value either in historic or aesthetic fields, or even bringing insecurity and harm. It is a good advice that we change them into thorough new buildings, endowing them with thorough new functions to serve some contemporary purposes. Like the Nazi prison camps, where millions of guiltless Jews lost their lives there, should be demolished on account of their evil purposes and destruction towards the whole humanity.（这段不错，集中营的例子很棒！）

In sum, we should call for the preservation of the historical-or-aesthetical-valued architectures, rather than put it into use and reconstruction, which meets some contemporary needs. At the same time, given the fact that some old buildings lost their values during the periods of time, modern architects on ancient buildings ought to impose their zeal of reconstruction on those mediocre buildings and give more freedom to the valuable ones.


遣词造句的水平很高~~~好多词都不认识阿~~~5555

优点不多说了，说论证的问题

题目是说现代的规划在与古建筑发生矛盾冲突时应现代为优先。issue该讨论的话题应该是是否应该优先，为什么优先或为什么不能优先，以及什么时候优先，这样展开就比较好了~~
body2说得是不是离题稍远了哪？body1不够convincing，我已经说了~~~嗯~~大体就是这样了

文采不错哦~~pfpf!

lovebrianUID: 157127

最初由 菜丸子 发布
[B]3.28啊，还有最后五天，每天计划写一整篇ISSUE，一篇ARGUMENT，然后做10个ISSUE提纲，10个A提纲。
55555，真后悔，到最后一个星期才开始写作文。呵呵，谢谢狒狒大哥喔 [/B]

不要着急啊~~最后几天要稳住情绪~~没问题的！呵呵`~~加油~

菜丸子UID: 158771

最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B]ISSUE 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 th..

以下省略...... [/B]

谢谢，非常赞同你的“应该论证谁优先谁不优先”，这样一来，我也觉得BODY2有点跑，可关于第一段有几个问题还需要讨论一下：
在第一段，我已经分析了啊，为了眼前暂时的利益而拆古城墙，使这一具有非常大的历史文化价值的建筑遭到史无前例的毁灭，是得不偿失的。这样可以证明古建保护应该优先于现代的NEEDS。难道不够CONVINCING吗？呵呵，期待继续讨论。

lovebrianUID: 157127

最初由 菜丸子 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B]ISSUE 26
Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy aris..

以下省略...... [/B]

嘿嘿~~~我认为不够convincing是因为你的ts说得太绝对化了~~
可以把语气改得缓和一点啊~~~这样论证也就不必这么累了~~你觉得呢？

SRVUID: 157299

开工了！！改～～～等我一会啊

菜丸子UID: 158771

最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 菜丸子 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B]ISSUE 26
Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any..

以下省略...... [/B]

有道理，呵呵。我现在写着写着不知怎么的了就偏激了。
现在抓紧搞一篇ARGUMENT，然后睡觉！

lovebrianUID: 157127

最初由 菜丸子 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 菜丸子 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 lovebrian 发布
[B]ISSUE 26
Most people would agree that buil..

以下省略...... [/B]

身体第一！！呵呵~~

coolwitsUID: 149150

issue26， issue和26之间不要空格

song123456UID: 133578

ISSUE 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.

ISSUE的翻译：很多人都同意，古建筑是对一个社会的过往的珍贵记录，但是当现代的规划师觉得现存的古建筑可以被更好地用来服务现代社会时，争议产生了。在这样的情况下，现代发展应该优先于保留有历史价值的古建筑。

我的中英文提纲：
（1）建立在牺牲有价值的古建筑的基础上的现代NEEDS，实际上没有给社会带来BENEFIT，只不过是暂时的NEEDS罢了；(对社会的)
（2）很多针对珍贵的古建筑的改造都不能避免地给建筑的外表和它的美学价值带来一定的损伤，因为把它恢复到原貌是非常困难的，人们通常无法很好地理解建筑师创作他们的作品时的独特想法；（对建筑本身的）
（3）我们也不得不承认，一些很少有历史和艺术价值的建筑可以通过改造来迎合现代的用途，以更好地实现它的价值。（让步）

(1)The contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact just temporary needs, rather than a really benefit towards the society.

(2)Most reconstructions on purpose of contemporary usage towards the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards its appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its original style designed by the ancient architect who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on their own works.

(3)Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its value well.

正文如下：
There are so many ancient architectural masterpieces, like the St. Sophia Church, the Parthenon, the Egyptian Pyramids and so on, still standing on earth, with their weathered but picturesque surfaces intriguing people's imagination of its once prosperity and fair stories. Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring to us, why not preserving and protecting it from any damage to its value? So, I dispute the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings.

First, the contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact just temporary needs, rather than a really benefit towards the society. Once the historic buildings began being changed or demolished for modern purposes, they would be, to some extent, setting out their way of losing ever charm and dignity. Like the disappearing ancient walls in Beijing City, on which several generations of dumb millions carved their grief during the war and happiness during the peaceful times, had witnessed the prosperities and comedowns of the whole city, But they can only exist in the our archive and textbook now, replaced by some brand-new streets and skyscrapers. No one can retrieve those precious stones and records, even the famous Chinese architect, Sicheng Liang, who spent the rest of his life to call for the preservation of the walls. Though it is really a modern place where the poor walls had ever stood in, what we have lost is much larger than what we have gained. In order to meet those so-called contemporary needs. The whole society of the humanity has really paid too much.(the topic sentence should be revised because you do admit that we have gained from the contemporary application in given example. i think it would be better if you propose that the value of old buildings outweigh that of contemporary needs directly.)

Another reason why I don't agree with the comment above is that, most reconstructions on purpose of contemporary usage towards the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards its appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its original style designed by the ancient architect who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on their own works. Modern architects and constructors may never completely know how those great works came into being. What they can do towards the buildings is sometimes based on a superficial comprehension of the originator’s spirits. Thus, (inappropriate) addition or reduction is destructive unless done by the creator himself. What we ought strive to do is preserving the initial appearance of the buildings as much as possible, keeping them away from unnecessary damage from either natural or manual. Just like the Parthenon, the famous architecture built up in ancient Greece, is now preserved well wholly in the museum, leaving the original site a replica. By this way, the valuable building is saved and at the same time, people can experience its aesthetic value while being kept away from damaging the antique both in the museum and in the initial site. (the example that focuses on possible methods to preserve a valuable construction has little relation with you main sentence.)

Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its value well. Those buildings, though having beared a long age, granted no value either in historic or aesthetic fields, or even bringing insecurity and harm. It is a good advice that we change them into thorough new buildings, endowing them with thorough new functions to serve some contemporary purposes. Like the Nazi prison camps, where millions of guiltless Jews lost their lives there, should be demolished on account of their evil purposes and destruction towards the whole humanity.

In sum, we should call for the preservation of the historical-or-aesthetical-valued architectures, rather than put it into use and reconstruction, which meets some contemporary needs. At the same time, given the fact that some old buildings lost their values during the periods of time, modern architects on ancient buildings ought to impose their zeal of reconstruction on those mediocre buildings and give more freedom to the valuable ones.
后面两段我没仔细看，但那个让步好象没什么力，只是凑字数。
以上纯属个人意见 :p
丸子好吃 :cool:

菜丸子UID: 158771

最初由 coolwits 发布
[B]issue26， issue和26之间不要空格 [/B]

呵呵IM SORRY，但是我改不了的斑竹帮个忙

xqmelissaUID: 140370

OK
给你改了

SRVUID: 157299

There are so many ancient architectural masterpieces, like the St. Sophia Church(不是说我们哈尔滨这个圣索非亚教堂吧？呵呵), the Parthenon(这个没听说过), the Egyptian Pyramids and so on, still standing on earth, with their weathered but picturesque （靓词！）surfaces intriguing people's imagination of its once prosperity and fair stories.（很漂亮的句子，学习！） Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring to us, why not preserving and protecting it from any damage to its value? So, I dispute the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings.
开头写的不错啊！

First, the contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact just temporary needs, rather than a really （这里应该加个“长远的”好一点）benefit towards the society. Once the historic buildings began being changed or demolished for modern purposes, they would be, to some extent, setting out their way of losing ever charm and dignity. Like the disappearing ancient walls in Beijing City, on which several generations of dumb millions carved their grief during the war and happiness during the peaceful times, had witnessed the prosperities and comedowns of the whole city, But they can only exist in the our archive and textbook now, replaced by some brand-new streets and skyscrapers.（这段写的我都感动了，真好） No one can retrieve those precious stones and records, even the famous Chinese architect, Sicheng Liang, who spent the rest of his life to call for the preservation of the walls. Though it is really a modern place（这个modern place我觉得有点问题。。。） where the poor walls had ever stood in, what we have lost is much larger than what we have gained. In order to meet those so-called contemporary needs. The whole society of the humanity has really paid too much.写的挺棒啊！！让我想起来我高中时候买的梁思成那本讲中国古建筑的书，后来都没看过。。。呵呵

Another reason why I don't agree with the comment above is that, most reconstructions on purpose of contemporary usage towards the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards its appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its original style designed by the ancient architect who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on their own works. Modern architects and constructors may never completely know how those great works came into being. What they can do towards the buildings is sometimes based on a superficial comprehension of the originator’s spirits. Thus, inappropriate addition or reduction is destructive unless done by the creator himself. What we ought strive to do is preserving the initial appearance of the buildings as much as possible, keeping them away from unnecessary damage from either natural or manual. Just like the Parthenon, the famous architecture built up in ancient Greece, is now preserved well wholly in the museum, leaving the original site a replica. By this way, the valuable building is saved and at the same time, people can experience its aesthetic value while being kept away from damaging the antique both in the museum and in the initial site.

Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its value well. Those buildings, though having beared a long age（有这个用法吗？？）, granted no value either in historic or aesthetic fields, or even bringing insecurity and harm. It is a good advice that we change them into thorough （这个词没见过，收藏）new buildings, endowing them with thorough new functions to serve some contemporary purposes. Like the Nazi prison camps, where millions of guiltless Jews lost their lives there, should be demolished on account of their evil purposes and destruction towards the whole humanity.。Nazi camps并不是完全要铲除，还是有他的历史价值的。就想咱们这边731集中营就是进行爱国主义教育的好地方啊

In sum, we should call for the preservation of the historical-or-aesthetical-valued architectures, rather than put it into use and reconstruction, which meets some contemporary needs. At the same time, given the fact that some old buildings lost their values during the periods of time, modern architects on ancient buildings ought to impose their zeal of reconstruction on those mediocre buildings and give more freedom to the valuable ones.

好文！！真是对你胃口的题目啊，哈哈。我觉得写的可以用生动来形容，呵呵反正我是读不出什麽毛病，这样的作文应该能5分以上吧？加油！就要考了，放轻松。胜利就在眼前！！
继续关注中….