issue26 全面修改，期待指正！

coniUID：137677

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(their) once prosperity and fair stories. Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring(brought) to us, why not preserving and protecting it from any damage to its(their) value? So(Consequently), 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(setting out of their original way and 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.(我认为这个例子并不能很好地证明你这段的论点，你说这段的论点是建立在牺牲古老建筑上的现代需求只是暂时的，不会给社会带来好处，可事实是“崭新的马路”和“摩天大楼”并不是暂时的好处，而且他们给社会发展带来的好处是有目共睹的。我认为应该换个例子。) 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(on/upon), 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.（没有证据支持人类为此付出了很多，还是那个问题，这个例子不足以说明你要说明的观点。）

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 (s)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. (这段不错！)

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(brought) 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.（我觉得这个例子也有问题，NAZI的集中营的教育意义非常大，不应该说他们没有价值，倒是可以举诸如一个古代的没有什么特征的年久失修的桥，继续存在只会危急过桥人的安全，应该重建）

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(meet) 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(这个此不太合适吧) buildings and give more freedom to the valuable ones.

sniper613UID：147372

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 (the) 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(!!!which严重并且低级的错误) bring to us, why not preserving（？？！！preserve） and protecting(protect) it(them) from any damage to its(their) 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(disappeared) ancient walls(City 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.(北京的二环路修在古城墙的位置上，而没有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（which-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.(Good examples and proving)

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)(you have used inevitably, “do” is useless.) 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(不能用were built or generated?). What they can do towards the buildings is sometimes based on a superficial comprehension of the originator’s spirits.(说的有点过分，太瞧不起现代建筑师了吧) Thus, inappropriate addition or reduction is destructive unless done by the creator himself. What we ought （to）strive to do is preserving the initial appearance of the buildings as much as possible(as possible as we can), 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. (写得很不错，除了一些语法错误)

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（existed for a long time） 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.(例子很不好，很多集中营被保存，作为历史的证据，觉得你最好换个例子，把古代建筑与现代要求结合起来的例子)

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.
最大的一个问题：很多的严重的语法错误，这对你的评分会有很大的杀伤力阿
句子，用词，论证方面都很好，继续努力哈~~~~~~~~~

菜丸子UID：158771

你说的严重错误的地方，也就是THEY改成WHICH的地方，我的THEY指代的是古建筑啊，呵呵你误会拉。
而且现代建筑的发展状态不能跟古代优秀的建筑师的作品相提并论，这是美学界公认的，建筑师们自己也承认，不是我一个人说的。呵呵
其实我个人认为，论证是有些问题的，不够严密，但是语言还是可以的啊~~~呵呵，好歹我四六级都考得不错，基本的语法还是行的。——增加自信。呵呵
还是非常谢谢你~！！

菜丸子UID：158771

最初由 SRV 发布
[B]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 Egy..

以下省略...... [/B]

SRV大哥谦虚了
那个圣索非亚大教堂不是哈尔滨的啦，是米兰的，世界上最大的一个古典教堂。
至于那个PARTHENON，是雅典卫城的中心建筑——帕提农神庙。
对于集中营的例子，确实值得推敲。呵呵，论据不足啊，引用起来觉得力不从心。
谢谢

dezhiUID：156141

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 可以不加the吗？ earth, with their weathered but picturesque surfaces intriguing people's imagination of its还是their？ once prosperity and fair stories. Since we are grateful with the aesthetical and historical values they bring to us, why not 我印象里是why not do，难道我记错了？ preserving and protecting it 指代一致，应该用them from any 是不是有些绝对？加上这个词如何：unnecessary damage to its value? So,这个逗号是不是多余？ I dispute the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings.
背景＋观点，开头不错

First, the contemporary needs built up on the sacrifice of the valuable old buildings are always in fact in fact插在这里觉得不舒服，可能是我今天活动太多了，anyway，hoho just temporary needs太绝对吧，很多对古建筑的改造在用途上是有益于子孙后代的，但却毁坏了建筑本身的艺术价值；所以我建议用often或是其他词, rather than a really词性错，real benefit towards名词benefit用在“对谁用益”时常与to连用 the society. Once the historic buildings began being changed 别扭，began to change不行吗？这里没必要用被动语态吧 or demolished for modern purposes, they would be, to some extent, setting out their way of losing ever副词，能用在名词前吗？ 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生动，好！, had witnessed 注意，前面这个句子很长，因此潜伏了一个语法问题：主干是：Like the ancient walls ……. had witnessed，看出来了吗？不如直接这么说：For instance, the ancient walls……had witnessed the prosperities and comedowns of the whole city,应当是句号，要不然后面那个大写字母怎么解释？ But they can only exist in the多余，和后面our连用极其不爽，去掉之 our archive and textbook我觉得应该用复数 now, replaced by some brand-new streets and skyscrapers插一句：这么论证合适吗？我们的古长城真的到了这么惨的地步了吗？还是应该说，If they are not well preserved, they would only exist in ……. No one can retrieve those precious stones and records记录？不太明白, even the famous Chinese architect, Sicheng Liang, who spent the rest of his life to spend … (in) doing call for the preservation of the walls. Though it is really a modern place where the poor walls had ever stood in前面用了where这里就不用再用in了吧？, what we have lost is much larger我觉得用more就够了 than what we have gained. In order to meet those so-called contemporary needs. The 这个地方，是不是应该用逗号和首字母小写单词呀？ whole society of the humanity 人类社会，还是人性的社会？感觉怪怪的 has really paid too much.
觉得这个段落对例子的论证还不到位，尤其没有扣住TS中的关键词“temporary needs”，而只是说对古建筑的破坏有害而已，不知我说的对不对？

Another reason why I don't agree with the comment above is that, most reconstructions on purpose of表示为了……的目的，应该用for (the) purpose of contemporary usage towards用of是不是更好？ the precious old buildings would inevitably do damage towards有这么说的吗？我见过的都是do damage to，有时候介词是不能随便换用的 its their appearance and aesthetic value, as it is difficult to restore its their original style designed by the ancient architects 小地方也要注意一下 who, as we know, always had their unique thoughts on 用infuse…into如何？ 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 How they make use of these invaluable buildings如何？ 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 是否应该是the creators themselves？你能确定是一个人做的吗？. What we ought strive to do怎么这么别扭，是不是应该是：What we should strive to do？ is preserving 觉得这里用to preserve更好，纯属个人意见了 the initial appearance of the buildings as much as possible, keeping them away from unnecessary 哈哈，我在前面就想到这个词了^_^ damage from either natural or manual 这里还少个名词呀！. Just like the Parthenon, the famous architecture built up in ancient Greece, is now 和前面的很长句错误一样 preserved well wholly个人感觉有些重复，一个还不够吗？直接well preserved就行了 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 这么说如何：while avoiding the possibility of damaging the antique both in the museum and in the initial site.
这个段落前面论证的不错，不过后面的例子实际上说明了一种解决方法，是不是有些偏离段落中心？段落着不少笔墨论述解决方法，是不是有些不妥？

Admittedly, some buildings with little historical and artistic value can be made of 由….组成？？这么说如何：can be made use of for contemporary purpose contemporary usage through reconstruction to realize its their！ value well. Those buildings, though having bearedbear过去分词是不是borne a long agetime或者period如何, are  granted no 用little吧 value either in historic or aesthetic fields, or 把or换成which如何？那样要把后面的动词也做一下相应的调整 even bringing insecurity and harm. It is a good advice advice不可数，应该用a good suggestion that we change them into thoroughly 修饰new 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完全多余，要不然为什么用定语从句？, should be demolished on account of their evil purposes and destruction towards destruction of更常用 the whole humanity.
这个例子举得合适吗？楼主说因为他邪恶的目的所以应该被“摧毁”，一没有说明它没有艺术价值，二没有论证“重建”而变成了“摧毁”，完全脱离了TS

In sum, we should call for the preservation of the historical-or-aesthetical-valued architectures, rather than put itthem into use and reconstruction, which meets some contemporary needs. At the same time, given the fact that some old buildings have lost their values during the periods of time哪一段时间？具体一些更好, modern architects on ancient buildings ought to impose their zeal of reconstruction on those mediocre buildings and give more freedom to the valuable ones.

dezhiUID：156141

总得来说写得不错，用词丰富，如果是限时写的那就更令人敬佩了

最严重的问题是例子举得不是很贴切，而且对例子的论证也不充分

最严重的语法问题是指代不一致，还有一些小地方，我都在上面指出来了

还有，发现楼主的艺术天赋非常得高呀，我也去过你的叶子了，pf得五体投地，什么时候也指点一下我呀，呵呵－－这是后话了

楼主继续努力！

菜丸子UID：158771

哈哈DEZHI啊我的文章以后就交你改拉，你指出的错误真的都是到位呀！那些小毛病，有的是我知道但没有意识到的，有的是后来醒悟了的，真的学到了不少东西。但是一开始你指出的WHY NOT后面是要加ING，记住了喔~~~~~~~
THANK VERY MUCH！

dezhiUID：156141

不客气，呵呵

我能确定why don't you do...?，但很久没用why not +动词了，所以记不清楚动词应该用什么形式了
刚才上google搜索了一番，找到下面几个句子：

Why Not Implant a Microchip?
Why Not Attack Iraq?
Why Not Dating? From A Mother's Heart.
Why Not Debate?
Why not clone a human?
So I ask, why not separate School and State as Church and State are now operated?
But why not go farther?
Why not send CEO jobs overseas?
Why not leave the kids your house and spend the rest yourself!

Why Not Fishing?
怎么两种形式都有，晕倒~~~~~~

菜丸子UID：158771

Why not后面加动词原形表示提建议，呵呵我错了

菜丸子UID：158771

还有，关于古城墙的历史和社会价值，绝对是超越于现代的摩天大楼和立交桥的。这一点，是建筑界达成的共识。

当我在日本和韩国看到他们将古迹保护得如此完好的时候，我总不禁想起那些拆掉北京古城墙的当权者们，他们在某种意义上说真是千古罪人！据说粱思成先生曾经为此力争过也痛哭过。否则，古老的北京城将给世人留下多麽宝贵的遗产呀。让我们铭记，让我们更好地珍惜北京劫后残存的古迹吧！

　一九五七年“反右”运动正如火如荼，而雄伟壮丽的北京城墙也正在被热火朝天地拆除。到处是毁墙的炮声，每一炮，都像在梁思成的心中炸响。他已经有了无望的感觉，但这位中国建筑学的著名学者还要为保卫北京城墙作最后拚搏。

　　有一天，梁思成发现地安门没有了，广安门也消失了，听说正拆广渠门，他急忙赶去，发现只剩下一个城台和一个门洞。而毁城的大军正向北京最后的两个城门进军----崇文门和西直门----一九五七年北京最后两个有瓮城的城门。

　　梁思成流泪了。“拆掉北京的一座城楼，就像砍掉我的一块肉；扒掉北京的一段城墙，就像割掉我的一层皮！”在一九五七年，这话比“右派”还右。但这发自内心深处的吶喊，梁思成无法埋藏在心里。
当梁思成知道旧城作为一个整体，无论如何保护不成的时候，仍然发出最后的吶喊。他退而求其次，希望保住旧城的城墙和城楼。为此，梁思成如杜鹃啼血，奔走呼号。然而，引来的却是一场无端的批判。幸运的是“批梁”半途而止，而不幸的是他无法主宰北京城墙的命运，城墙最终被拆毁了。

　　城墙毁了，但梁思成为北京城墙吶喊的声音，却依然回荡在古老的京城上空，警示后人要善待老祖宗留下的家业，让历史文物成为人类共同的财富。

菜丸子UID：158771

请不要再和我说，破城墙能比得上现代的设施吗，都什么时代了，还要那些东西作什么。……
I sincerely hope that more and more people, can understand the situation and position of a distinguished architect who insists on preserving the ancient walls.

菜丸子UID：158771

花了两个小时把文章改大了一遍，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！

菜丸子UID：158771

55555555555555

eaglezhouUID：156651

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
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 suspect on the given statement that contemporary needs should take precedence over the preservation of some historical and artistic buildings. （后面有让步是不是应该前面体现得更加清楚一点呢？）

First of all, some so-called modern values cannot often reach the same class of the historical values（两个value的话好吗？） 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(太武断了) 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（要加of吧！） 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.（我觉得这段没问题啊！好像没跑吧！）

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.

菜丸子UID：158771

谢谢EAGLEZHOU·武断的地方是要改