Issu26【07-10G Superstar大帖】13次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

Do contemporary needs be given precedence over preservation of historic building when controversy arises as the speaker asserts? While I concede that speaker’s claim holds merit in some circumstances, it is too extreme to conclude that all modern needs should be granted priority.

To those old buildings that have great historic value such as palaces in China, India, Europe and other old civilizations, there is not any reason to level these buildings into ground, no matter how much commercial value the lands on which they locates have. Palace in Beijing now lies in the center of the city, as well as the Triumphal Arch in Pairs, arena in Roma, all of which, according to the speaker, ought to be put down because they hamper the use of lands for commercial purpose. But never had any plan of tearing those building down been brought into discussion in public or in offices of government. As I see, there are two primary reasons to explain this. One is that one such building like Palace in Beijing and The Triumphal Arch in Pairs has been taken as the symbol of the entire country, society, and history. The Palace in Beijing witnessed and is revealing the most thrived and prosperous time in history of China, which also give power and spirits to all Chinese citizens now, just like the function of The Statue of Liberty to Americans. To destroy these buildings are detrimental to all society.

The other reason why I disagree with the speaker lies in that in many cases protection of these buildings and modern needs are not mutually exclusive. Although taking large amount of lands that are valuable in the respect of commerce, they bring more benefit to economy in ways of tourism revenue because historic remains I mentioned above appeal to people all around the world. The income from tourism accounts for a large proportion of total revenue of cities like Beijing, Paris, Rome and so on. Every year more than one million people visit the Palace in Beijing and their expense on food, hotel, traffic and keepsake greatly promotes the development of related industries, which can satisfy more contemporary needs than merely tearing those buildings down.

When it comes to other buildings with less historic value, condition varies. Despite the greatest buildings talked above, buildings where some famous persons such as political leaders, scientists, thinkers, artists have lived in should also be protected for they are important factors when we study the stories and life experiences of those people for knowledge and inspirations on the basis that these old buildings do not endanger other architectures nearby. In any case where normal old buildings are in bad condition, jeopardizing the surroundings and costing too much to repair, it is reasonable to make better use of the land and protect people by destruction and building new ones, which is also implacable to those old departments although they are symbol of styles of lives in different times. Living in old departments and communities that lasts decades or more is a terrible experience due to obsolete convenience facilities, narrow space, bad traffic, higher chance of catching fire and so forth. In this case precedence should been given to current needs than protection of history.

To sum up, the speaker’s assertion takes merit insofar as to buildings with less historic value and in bad condition, but to those buildings of great significance to one race, county and culture, modern needs should been given less priority.



[ 本帖最后由 huaxinluobo 于 2007-6-22 14:23 编辑 ]

laura001UID: 2295927

Do contemporary needs be given precedence over preservation of historic building when controversy arises as the speaker asserts? While I concede that speaker’s claim holds merit in some circumstances, it is too extreme to conclude that all modern needs should be granted priority. (语法有问题)


To those old buildings that have great historic value such as palaces in China, India, Europe and other old civilizations, there is not any reason to level these buildings into ground(夷为平地这词组用的不错), no matter how much commercial value the lands on which they locates have.(2句间要加个连接词,比如可以说按照作者的观念,就是要把...) Palace in Beijing now lies in the center of the city, as well as the Triumphal Arch in Pairs, arena in Roma, all of which, according to the speaker, ought to be put down because they hamper the use of lands for commercial purpose. But never had any plan of tearing those building down been brought into discussion in public or in offices of government.(这句突然出现,感觉有点别扭) As I see, there are two primary reasons to explain this. One is that one such building(+S) like Palace in Beijing and The Triumphal Arch in Pairs has been taken as the symbol of the entire country, society, and history. The Palace in Beijing witnessed and is revealing the most thrived and prosperous time in history of China, which also give power and spirits to all Chinese citizens now, just like the function of The Statue of Liberty to Americans. To destroy these buildings are detrimental to all society. (总的来说这段论述的不错,挺有说服力的)


The other reason why I disagree with the speaker lies in that in many cases protection of these buildings and modern needs are not mutually exclusive. Although taking a large amount of lands that are valuable in the respect of commerce, they bring more benefit to economy in ways of tourism revenue because historic remains I mentioned above appeal to people all around the world. The income from tourism accounts for a large proportion of total revenue of cities like Beijing, Paris, Rome and so on. Every year more than one million people visit the Palace in Beijing and their expense on food, hotel (+s), traffic and keepsake(+s)  greatly promotes the development of related industries, which can satisfy more contemporary needs than merely tearing (tear )those buildings down.


When it comes to other buildings with less historic value, condition varies. Despite the greatest buildings talked above, buildings where some famous persons such as political leaders, scientists, thinkers, artists have lived in should also be protected(,) for they are important factors(, )when we study the stories and life experiences of those people for knowledge and inspirations on the basis that these old buildings do not endanger other architectures nearby. (这句语法好象有点问题...)In any case where normal old buildings are in bad condition, jeopardizing the surroundings and costing too much to repair, it is reasonable to make better use of the land and protect people by destruction and building new ones, which is also implacable(?为什么用这词,不平静的?想说明什么呢?) to those old departments although they are symbol of styles of lives in different times(这句和主题关系不大,这里开始要主要陈述有些旧房子的危害和新建筑的好处会好点). Living in old departments and communities that lasts decades or more is a terrible experience due to obsolete convenience facilities, narrow space, bad traffic, higher chance of catching fire and so forth. In this case precedence should been given to current needs than protection of history.

To sum up, the speaker’s assertion takes merit insofar as to buildings with less historic value and in bad condition, but to those buildings of great significance to one race, county and culture, (觉得这样说泛了点,怎样才是对我们国家来说是重要?可以说对于能吸引大量游客的代表国家的历史性建筑....)modern needs should been given less priority.


我觉得中间BODY部分,前2个写的还不错,第3个稍微弱了点.
总体上还是不错.呵呵~

[ 本帖最后由 laura001 于 2007-6-23 14:24 编辑 ]