issue26 (12月高强组 ——好好学习，天天作文)

一月一号UID: 2148376

1.       Old buildings are representative of the past; but we do not need every old ones.
2.       The location is limited and we should give some precedence if the old ones are not so precious.
3.       The government should depend more on the research of scholars, like historicist and archeologists.  

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: 575          TIME: 1:25:36          DATE: 2006-12-1

As we limited in such a small planet, we usually encounter in such a dilemma that we need certain locations, where there are already an old building, to modern development. Whether we should give modern development precedence over the preservation of historic buildings? My answer is that it depends on the advantage of the modern use and the holistic value of the old ones.

Buildings are the condensed music that represent a precious record of the past and are of the most important materials for the historicist and archeologist. For instance, the Forbidden City in China, which was built in Ming dynasty for royal use, is a precious cultural and historical heritage of China. It represents the politic system and culture of the majestic level and is one of the inevitable places one should visit if he wants to learn some about Ming and Qing dynasty. Furthermore, some old buildings are not just representative of the past, but also can represent now. Eiffel tower is the first image appearing in one’s mind when people think and talk about Paris and it becomes symbolic of Paris. Once a famous writer said (and I paraphrase), “Paris is not Paris anymore without Eiffel tower". Such buildings and architectures are so precious that we should keep them for their fantastic historical and cultural merits.

However, as we see, with the explosion of population and high-speed development, our lonely planet seems becomes limited and we are urging for more locations. We need to give some precedence to modern development if the old buildings which occupy locations is not very representative and of not much aesthetic. Especially in some major cities in the world, real estates are more and more profitable. The new factories, new companies, new parking lots and malls, and new apartments call for spaces and we must get it down with our limited resources. Thus, we are bound to having the dilemma dealing these issues. In fact, we have to tear down some old buildings if they are not so precious. If the preservation of historical always stands on the first place, how we can create the history of our own time now and how we can expect our future development. Except old architectures that are representative, unique and of great aesthetic historical values, it is hard to preserve them and ignore the urgency of modern development, like building new apartments for homeless people. It is a little crucial to still keep the old building when there is need for urgent use; especially many of same kind of this architecture are already preserved.

Therefore, both the negative and positive of dismantlement of old buildings call a balance that both the importance of the modern use and historical and cultural heritage values should be taken into account. Accurate and elaborate advises and researches are needed when the choice between old ones and new ones is made. The government should refer to historians and architects to evaluate the cultural merits and meanwhile list the urgency and importance of modern uses when they make this tough choice.

In sum, though we treasure our old buildings as historical, aesthetic and cultural value, the need for modern development is also should be taken into account. Thus it is not wise for the decision makes ignore either one of these two aspects and they need strive for other solutions to this kind of dilemma, liking preserve old buildings but use them for modern development.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

As we are limited in such a small planet, we usually encounter in such a dilemma that we need certain locations, where there are already an old building, to for modern development. Whether we should should we后面是问号,别写晕了忘了基本语法:) give modern development precedence over the preservation of historic buildings? My answer is that it depends on the advantage of the modern use and the holistic value of the old ones.
感觉跟上次斑竹们改的一样, 抄题抄太死了, 容易限制住自己的思维, 虽然也不容易跑题....

Buildings are the condensed music原话是"建筑是凝固的音乐"concreted music吧? that represent a precious record of the past and are of the most important materials for the historicists and archeologists. For instance, the Forbidden City in China, which was built in Ming dynasty for royal use, is a precious cultural and historical heritage of China 前后有两个China,有个多余了,前面那个改成Beijing好了. It represents the politic system and culture of the majestic level and is one of the inevitable places one should visit if he wants to learn some about Ming and Qing dynasty. Furthermore, some old buildings are not just representative of the past, but also can represent now. Eiffel tower is the first image appearing in one’s mind when people think and talk about Paris and it becomes symbolic of Paris. Once a famous writer said (and I paraphrase), “Paris is not Paris anymore without Eiffel tower". Such buildings and architectures 多余 are so precious that we should keep them for their fantastic historical and cultural merits.

However, as we see, with the explosion of population and high-speed development, our lonely planet seems becomes becoming/to become limited and we are urging for more locations. We need to give some precedence to modern development if the old buildings which occupy locations is are not very representative and of not much aesthetic普及下知识...古建筑之所以宝贵不是因为它们外型美好, 而是因为它们的历史价值, 作为记忆和证据的作用. 过于强调古建筑的美感而保护它们是上个世纪出以法国建筑师为代表的建筑师派的历史建筑保护观点, 现在在学术界一般是被否认的...虽然就大众而言对于此还没有个定论, 但考虑批卷子的是PRINCETON的牛人, 估计多少会了解些, 所以我觉得有必要在这个话题上深化下内涵.. Especially in some major cities in the world, real estates are more and more profitable. The new factories, new companies, new parking lots and malls, and new apartments两个and, 应该去掉前面那个 call for spaces and we must get it down with our limited resources. Thus, we are bound to having the dilemma dealing these issues. In fact, we have to tear down some old buildings if they are not so precious. If the preservation of historical always stands on the first place, how we can create the history of our own time now and how we can expect our future development.这句话倒是不错, 建议以后可以用荷兰建筑大师Rem Koolhaas的观点: "What we are building now will become history in furture." Except old architectures that are representative, unique and of great aesthetic historical values, it is hard to preserve them and ignore the urgency of modern development, like building new apartments for homeless people. It is a little crucial to still keep the old building when there is need for urgent use; especially many of same kind of this architecture are already preserved.
感觉整段的论述忽略了一个前提, 就是要论证很多历史建筑是没有价值保存的, 前面让步了半天说历史建筑很宝贵, 却没说那些没有价值的历史建筑, 等于是把这段的论证架空了.  可以加入些论述: 比如有的古建筑其实是临时加建的只是损害着生活质量(北京的大杂院), 有的是殖民建筑代表的强权(长春的伪满洲首都仿日建筑), 有的不具备地域性是建筑垃圾(大量未经设计的筒子楼, 违章建筑), 还有的是假古董(一些南方城市的仿古建筑, 北京的平安大街, 天津的估衣街, 钟鼓楼等等)

Therefore, both the negative and positive of dismantlement of old buildings call a balance that both the importance of the modern use and historical and cultural heritage values should be taken into account. Accurate and elaborate advises and researches are needed when the choice between old ones and new ones is made. The government should refer to historians and architects to evaluate the cultural merits and meanwhile list the urgency and importance of modern uses when they make this tough choice.
感觉这段还可以展开下, 现在没有实际的例子, 举个反的, 北京的城门楼子, 举个正的, 巴黎的凯旋门, 伦敦的国会大厦, 这样会比较有说服力. 而且关键是前面一直在说价值而这里谈的过于泛泛了, 怎么能让我们确信政府应该这么做? 比如返回故宫的例子, 说经过历史学家的认定这里的价值无论什么现代发展都不能超越, 就可以提出比较有力的论证了.

In sum, though we treasure our old buildings as historical, aesthetic and cultural value, the need for modern development is also should should also be taken into account. Thus it is not wise for the decision makes ignore either one of these two aspects and they need strive for other solutions to this kind of dilemma, liking preserve old buildings but use them for modern development.

总体而言是篇不错的ISSUE, 但遗憾的是最重要的最后一点(其实全文论证的中心应该就在这里, 历史建筑的价值和现代发展的评估)没有充分展开, 显得主题不够鲜明. 也可能是我专业在此要求有些高了...