issue26 Smile-A组 第八次作业

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

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: 557          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-8-7

Architecture as the place for people to live and work has always been controversial. In front of old buildings and modern needs, planners often feel hard to choose. In this issue, the concerning that modern development should be given precedence in situations like old buildings are less useful than the modern ones is basically correct. Yet, since the issue is complex we should be cautious in different cases.

In modern society, the policy that economy development has been put on the first place in many countries is no fault especially in some developing countries. In this progress, land plays an important role because it's a base of one's career so the conflict between dismantlement and protecting old buildings has been more and more fierce. Actually, some old buildings are poky and lack of modern equipment like tap water, Wide Band etc. which make the life discommodious. Not all old buildings have huge architectural value and if they locate in downtown they may influence the surrounding and antipathetic to the modern style. In this case, removing these old building is not a bad choice. Modern designers can replace them with more advancing and more beautiful work which brings people convenience.

In addition, what we should not forget is though we are in the modern age, however hundreds or thousands years later, we will have become the ancestors of people in that age. What we have built now will finally become a part of history at that time. As a consequence, the style and character of our buildings also have their own values and we have responsibility to express them and descend them to our offspring, otherwise architecture will lose a period of value which is not what we expected.

However, it's easy to say but hard to hold the balance because whether the old buildings are valuable and needed to keep is difficult to judge. Due to this, people have made many mistakes or have been boxed up in puzzledom. To many buildings like Great Wall in China, Eiffel Tower in Paris and so forth, we have no choice. Apart from the publicly accepted work, other buildings with art or archeology value worldwide should be taken in charge by government. In the preposition of assuring economy development, we cannot drop any treasure remained. Another way to solve the question is combining both. There are several examples of which the most typical one is Roman City where modern activities like opera are still going on in traditional masterpiece, for example Colosseum that was used to show the naval battles and gladiatorial combats. In France, many old castles are kept and residents can live in them. At week-end tourists are permitted to take a visit to them. This method not only protects the castles but also increase the income of the local people and government which is a good choice.

Buildings as a carrier of human's activities are precious treasure of our civilization. In different circumstances, we need to make relevant choice. For those national with high history and art value, we have the responsibility to protect it inheriting human civilization. On the other hand, architectures also need to create the new style of buildings after all they will become a part of history. If we are in a dilemma, some successful examples like Rome combining traditional and modern can give us some advices. Anyway, as long as we take a serious and responsible attitude towards this problem, I believe human can solve it satisfactorily.

基本限时写的，最后又加了一句话。欢迎大家来拍！

xinxinwUID: 2144273

Architecture as the place for people to live and work has always been controversial不明白，architecture本身有什么可争议的？. In front of old buildings and modern needs, planners often feel hard to choose. In this issue, the concerning that modern development should be given precedence in situations like去掉 like old buildings are less useful than the modern ones is basically correct. Yet, since the issue is complex we should be cautious in different cases.

In modern society, the policy that economy development has been put on the first place in many countries is no fault especially in some developing countries. In this progress, land plays an important role because it's a base of one's career so the conflict between dismantlement and protecting old buildings has been more and more fierce. Actually, some old buildings are poky and lack of modern equipment like tap water, Wide Band etc. which make the life discommodious. Not all old buildings have huge architectural value and if they locate in downtown they may influence the surrounding and antipathetic to the modern style. In this case, removing these old building is not a bad choice. Modern designers can replace them with more advancing and more beautiful work which brings people convenience.这一段应该着重分析modern 的急需，而不是说有的建筑没什么用处

In addition, what we should not forget is though we are in the modern age, however hundreds or thousands years later, we will have become the ancestors of people in that age. What we have built now will finally become a part of history at that time. As a consequence, the style and character of our buildings also have their own values and we have responsibility to express them and descend them to our offspring, otherwise architecture will lose a period of value which is not what we expected.仅仅因为时光的流逝我们就应该保护古迹？

However, it's easy to say but hard to hold the balance because whether the old buildings are valuable and needed to keep is difficult to judge. Due to this, people have made many mistakes后面没有相关的失败的例子好像 or have been boxed up in puzzledom. To many buildings like Great Wall in China, Eiffel Tower in Paris and so forth, we have no choice. Apart from the publicly accepted work, other buildings with art or archeology value worldwide should be taken in charge by government. In the preposition of assuring economy development, we cannot drop any treasure remained. Another way to solve the question is combining both. There are several examples of which the most typical one is Roman City where modern activities like opera are still going on in traditional masterpiece, for example Colosseum that was used to show the naval battles and gladiatorial combats. In France, many old castles are kept and residents can live in them. At week-end tourists are permitted to take a visit to them. This method not only protects the castles but also increase the income of the local people and government which is a good choice.

Buildings as a carrier of human's activities are precious treasure of our civilization. In different circumstances, we need to make relevant choice. For those national with high history and art value, we have the responsibility to protect it inheriting human civilization. On the other hand, architectures also need to create the new style of buildings after all they will become a part of history. If we are in a dilemma, some successful examples like Rome combining traditional and modern can give us some advices. Anyway, as long as we take a serious and responsible attitude towards this problem, I believe human can solve it satisfactorily.

猫猫寿司UID: 2219543

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: 557          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-8-7

Architecture as the place for people to live and work has always been controversial.为什么人们住和工作的地方就有争议阿？ In front of old buildings and modern needs, planners often feel hard to choose. In this issue, the concerning that modern development should be given precedence in situations like old buildings are less useful than the modern ones is basically correct. Yet, since the issue is complex we should be cautious in different cases.

In modern society, the policy that economy development has been put on the first place in many countries is no fault especially in some developing countries. In this progress, land plays an important role because it's a base of one's career so the conflict between dismantlement and protecting old buildings has been more and more fierce. Actually, some old buildings are poky and lack of modern equipment like tap water, Wide Band etc. which make the life discommodious. Not all old buildings have huge architectural value and if they locate in downtown they may influence the surrounding and antipathetic to the modern style. In this case, removing these old building is not a bad choice. Modern designers can replace them with more advancing and more beautiful work which brings people convenience. 我觉得审题有点偏，人家是historic building 不是historical building阿，是指有历史意义的建筑，拿xinxinw的话来说，很多都不是用来住的

In addition, what we should not forget is though we are in the modern age, however hundreds or thousands years later, we will have become the ancestors of people in that age. What we have built now will finally become a part of history at that time. As a consequence, the style and character of our buildings also have their own values and we have responsibility to express them and descend them to our offspring, otherwise architecture will lose a period of value which is not what we expected.

However, it's easy to say but hard to hold the balance because whether the old buildings are valuable and needed to keep is difficult to judge. Due to this, people have made many mistakes or have been boxed up in puzzledom. To many buildings like Great Wall in China, Eiffel Tower in Paris and so forth, we have no choice. Apart from the publicly accepted work, other buildings with art or archeology value worldwide should be taken in charge by government. In the preposition of assuring economy development, we cannot drop any treasure remained. Another way to solve the question is combining both. There are several examples of which the most typical one is Roman City where modern activities like opera are still going on in traditional masterpiece, for example Colosseum that was used to show the naval battles and gladiatorial combats. 很高兴看见和自己一模一样的例子：）In France, many old castles are kept and residents can live in them. At week-end tourists are permitted to take a visit to them. This method not only protects the castles but also increase the income of the local people and government which is a good choice. building的定义在韦伯斯特大字典和众多字典上都是有墙有顶叫做building，不是construction，所以例子不太恰当

Buildings as a carrier of human's activities are precious treasure of our civilization. In different circumstances, we need to make relevant choice. For those national with high history and art value, we have the responsibility to protect it inheriting human civilization. On the other hand, architectures also need to create the new style of buildings after all they will become a part of history. If we are in a dilemma, some successful examples like Rome combining traditional and modern can give us some advices. Anyway, as long as we take a serious and responsible attitude towards this problem, I believe human can solve it satisfactorily.这段和上面重复有点太多啦

已阅:)

EmmanuelleUID: 2231740

55555...审题有误！没分清historic &historical
但愿别犯这种最严重的了