Issue26 morallrey快考了，大家帮忙改改

morallreyUID: 2191298

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:480        TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2006-8-16

Should modern development be given priority over the preservation of historic building when ancient buildings stand on ground that could be explored for modern purposes? The speaker recommends so. While this recommendation has some merit, and I agree insofar as there are so numerous historic building that modern planners often falls into trouble finding ground to put into practice their own plan, the recommendation is, however, sided-thinking; Since, historic buildings, especially if they are of vital unique, deserves superior concern from people around the world. Otherwise, we as well as our descendants will suffer from great loss.

Admittedly, compelling is the assertion that there are so many old buildings standing on ground that lies in the densely-populated site around the world, where large tracts of land is needed for the development of modern city. Let us take a rapid tour across the globe. In China, the Tiananmen Gatetower, which takes up thousands of square miles, is located in the center of Peking, capital of China. In France, the Eiffel tower, which is hundreds of meter's high, serves to be a visible break under the blue sky in Paris. Likewise, the liberty statue in America obstacles the flight line in New York. In fact, these buildings are defying numeration, which takes quantities place that otherwise is of vital importance for the cities or towns where they are located to utilize in other ways. In short, when, on the one hand, historic building attracts people around the world, they, on the other hand, bring about a host of problems to the now land-lacking cites.

Beyond this concession, it is untenable, however, to argue that historic buildings should be removed just for the negative effects mentioned above. Nonetheless, historic buildings, some of which are with long history, are a big fortune history has left to us. Consider again Tiananmen tower, despite the tremendous area it takes, is always there reminding us of the prosperity of Tang Dynasty, a period in Chinese history when its emperor thrived the economy, culture and politics, which we Chinese people will eternally take pride in. In addition, the terra-cotta warriors located in Xian, though also a gigantic project, broaden our horizon when we visit there, where numerous life-like soldiers and chariots stand systematically. It also witnesses the strength of Qin Dynasty, where born the ambitious monarchy Qin Shi Huang. Therefore, were these numerous historic building eliminated from the earth, then how could we reminisce on our fulgent histories, and draw lessons from them?

Summarily put, I concede that modern city, with technology developing and the demand of land inflating, calls for more land than ever. Nonetheless, it is unwise to damage or destroy them merely due to such an inconvenience; instead, we should better protect them from corrupting and losing. Then, year after year, there are always those meaningful historic building standing there evoking our memory in depth.