issue 138 第8次作业 <永不言弃小组> by zhouding3000

zhouding3000UID: 2400953

26"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."


The author asserts that the precedence should be given to the modern construction. Whether or not the priority is worth giving depends on the real value and aesthetic appreciation of the old buildings including relics and the modern buildings. Considering the fact that the old buildings represent the honor and the history, bestow people with the sense of identity, however, the modern buildings express the modern civilization and thus overflow the flavor and aesthetic appreciation, and meanwhile could be better used for daily convenience, it is necessary to estimate meticulously and consider across-the-board what they respectively bring to us.

In the first place, the old buildings shoulder much about our history and civilization. When it comes to relics, how could we imagine the Britain without Big Ben, Italy without abattoir, China without summer palace. The relics are not only the heirlooms from our ancestors but also the symbol of honor and the emblem of civilization. All people are proud of those old buildings, because they all feel a sense of identity. Admittedly, it is universally acknowledged that all people desire to be identified and accepted. At first, they should certify themselves. What gives them the motivation and confidence to identify themselves is the culture and civilization behind their nationalities. As is said above, old buildings burden the culture and civilization of a nation and bring them to real image everyone could worship.

Of equal importance, the modern buildings also count in a nation. China wins the bid to hold the 2008 Olympic games. What could be showed to the world are not only the summer palace, the Great Wall, etc. but also the modern facilities and buildings including hotel, stadium, also the hygiene certification. The funds invested in those project are huge and the people nationwide are also proud of them. The modern construction represents the modern flavors and aesthetic appreciation of the country and the style and quality in themselves indicate the country’s step in science and technology which are the mainstay of a country standing in this current world.

According to the aforementioned analysis, it is ludicrous to say which should be granted precedence to consider. We might consider and estimate the real value both of them could bring. When it comes to old buildings, it is unreasonable to states that they should be smashed by no means due to their historic value. And when facing modern plans in construction, it is unilateral to consider their own benefits.

We would not go the one-way street to preserve the old buildings, granted that the relics take possession of position where the modern buildings locate. If it is small relics, it is worth preserving completely. And if it is relatively larger ones, it is reasonable to divide them into parts for preservation with new technologies. After all, the old buildings are irreversible after being smashed. The government should guide the centre of a city to a area where relics are far away and then the controversy might be solved basically. When it is necessary to smash down the old buildings, just as what has been done in New Orleans, the residential area and the similar kind, that is, buildings of less historic value, should become a shield.

In sum, there is no precedence existing to make both kinds of buildings replace each other. The precedence are how the city, and the nation develop and what kind of building is beneficial for the bigger group to improve. They both could coexist and should do that. The old buildings shoulder the culture and the past of a nation while the modern buildings represent the power of a country to stand nowadays. A better solution to the controversy is to transfer the centre of a city to a area where the valuable old buildings are not located, thus, on a large scale, solve the key problem.