- 最后登录
- 2012-12-22
- 在线时间
- 772 小时
- 寄托币
- 721
- 声望
- 6
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-2
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 4
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 525
- UID
- 2659682
- 声望
- 6
- 寄托币
- 721
- 注册时间
- 2009-7-2
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 4
|
小弟还有一个月机考,已经练了两篇I正在改
也有和一个同学一起互改文章
不过我们的水平都有限,互相改最多只是指出一些语法上的问题或者用词上的问题
没法从评分的角度来说自己的作文到底能有多少分
所以心里没底,想问问各位大虾是怎样给自己的作文评价,一般改到什么程度呢?
谢谢!
附上小弟的习作,ISSUE26,请大家指点!!!谢谢!!!
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."
With the highly developed procedure of modernization and civilization, more and more
conflicts occured between old buildings and the modern development strategy. Thus the
speaker holds the view that modern development should be given precedence over the
preservation of historic buildings to meet the contemporary need, which, as far as I'm
concerned, seems to be too assertive and oversimplied the problem.
Admittedly, contemporary needs of development should be satisfied for the thriving of the
society, since the location planned for districts and buildings in the past usually do not
match the requirement in nowadays cities, especially with the expanding of the downtown
area in metropolis. For instance, in Canton a large number of the so-called "villages in
the city" have been dismantled these years and the local people were settled in the newly
built apartment building with allowance provided by the government. Actually lots of this
destructive work had been done to remove some of the old buildings in order to make room
for the new city planning.
However, as the speaker claims in the topic, most people would agree that buildings
represent a valuable record of any society's past. It is just for this reason that modern
development should not be given precedence unconditionally over the preservation of
historic buildings, because some of the old buildings like temples, churches or etc. do not
merely contain a cultural or religious meaning of itself, but also symbolize the city or
even the whole nation. People visit Paris, for the famous Eiffel Tower, and visit Rome, for
the ancient Arena, and visit BeiJing, for the magnificent Forbbiden City. Without such
original brands, cities in the world may lose their attraction to foreign visitors, and
graduatly become more and more identical, which will be a crisis to the protection of world
culture's diversity.
More importantly, except for the possible decline in tourism proceeds, the native people,
especially our offspring, could never see or touch such relics and interests in flesh,
since historic buildings can't be rebuilt once they have been razed. As a result every
dismantling work to old buildings should be carefully cogitated and appraise the value not
only in economic profits but also in historic and aesthetic field.
In my opinion, the crux is to pursue a balance between development planning and historic
preservation. In fact old buildings is not the opposite side to modernization and a better
solution is to try our best to seperate the developing area and the old district with the
help of technology in transportation such as the underground. Furthermore, in view of the
development and expansion of the cities all around the world, Rome provides another method
to smooth the conflict between the olds and news by incorporating modern development with
traditional architecture.
In conclusion, modern development should not unconditionally be given piority over the
protection of traditional buildings, so as to retain the diversity and historic marking of
different nations. Consequently the embroilment should be disentangled by better planning
and the help of modern technology, to save the relic for our descendant not only in the
books or datas. |
|