我们的九月 第六次作业 i 26

juzijuntuanUID: 2231815

In the modern world, the development of modernization is progressing rapidly, and the contemporary need to the ground is greatly expanded, which leads to the controversy with the protection of historic building. When faced with the issue, my opinion is that in certain environment, the protection of historic building is significant, and should be given precedence over the contemporary needs, but for most part the it can be compatible with the contemporary need.

First, the protection of historic buildings is of significance, for the buildings represent a valuable record of the society’s past. We should protect them well, or will lose them forever once they are destroyed and disappeared. Like the famous Summer palace of Qing dynasty of China, which is the top of the architecture and gardening at the Qing dynasty survived from the war, if it been destroyed than it will leave no chance for the people nowadays to enjoy its greatness both in art and history but only in the record. Besides, the historic buildings could play the role as the symbol of a city or a nation, such as the Status of Liberty as the delegate of New York City, and the Buckingham Palace as the symbol of London, and should be protected well.

Meanwhile, the protection of the historic building should be under a certain level, not all the buildings worth being protected, when the historic building with little value contradicts with contemporary need, then later one should go first, as the contemporary need is urgent and meets the demand of the majorities. Besides, it is feasible to protect a small part of the same historic buildings and the others could be destroyed for the modernization used, or even not to protect the building with little value in history, which can conciliate the contemporary need and the protection of historic buildings. Therefore, the building should be carefully evaluated and decided whether they are worthy to be protected or they should give the precedence to the contemporary need.

Apart from what had been recounted, for most part the protection of historic buildings and the modern plan could reach to an agreement, which means the historic and modern building could coexist. For one hand, the modern building could be well designed to conciliate with the historic ones. Take the city of Paris for example, the modern buildings are designed to be in harmony with the ancient buildings and the city is designed to extend from the famous Triumphal Arch. For the other hand, the historic building could be modified to serve modern use. The city of Amsterdam proved itself to be a good example, the appearances of historic buildings along the Rijn canal keep the same as it was for years, while the inside are used for the modern life.

To sum up, according to what had been discussed above, a conclusion could be draw safely that though the preservation of historic buildings are important, for most part they can be well conciliate with the contemporary need. As a result, the modern planners can design well a modernization city of the perfect combination with the buildings of historic and modern style.

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

In the modern world, the development of modernization is progressing rapidly, and the contemporary need to(of) the ground is greatly expanded, which leads to the controversy with the protection of historic building. When faced with the issue, my opinion is that in certain environment (condition), the protection of historic building is significant(这里应该是否定语气吧), and should be given precedence over the contemporary needs, but for most part the（可删） it can be compatible with the contemporary need.

First, the protection of historic buildings is of significance, for the buildings represent a valuable record of the society’s past. We should protect them well, or will lose them forever once they are destroyed and disappeared（disappear）. Like the famous Summer palace of Qing dynasty of China, which is the top of the architecture and gardening at(in) the Qing dynasty survived from the war, if it (has) been destroyed than it will leave no chance for the people nowadays to enjoy its greatness both in art and history but only in the record. Besides, the historic buildings could play the role as the symbol of a city or a nation, such as the Status of Liberty as the delegate of New York City, and the Buckingham Palace as the symbol of London, and should be protected well.

Meanwhile, the protection of the historic building should be under a certain level, not all the buildings worth being protected, when the historic building with little value contradicts with contemporary need, then later one should go first, as the contemporary need is urgent and meets the demand of the majorities. Besides, it is feasible to protect a small part of the same historic buildings and the others could be destroyed for the modernization used, or even not to protect the building with little value in history, which can conciliate the contemporary need and the protection of historic buildings. Therefore, the building should be carefully evaluated and decided whether they are worthy to be protected or they should give the precedence to the contemporary need.
(总的来说，感觉这一段比较牵强，论证不够)

Apart from what had been recounted, for most part the protection of historic buildings and the modern plan could reach to an agreement, which means the historic and modern building could coexist. For one hand, the modern building could be well designed to conciliate with the historic ones. Take the city of Paris for example, the modern buildings are designed to be in harmony with the ancient buildings and the city is designed to extend from the famous Triumphal Arch. For the other hand, the historic building could be modified to serve modern use. The city of Amsterdam proved itself to be a good example, the appearances of historic buildings along the Rijn canal keep the same as it was for years, while the inside are used for the modern life.

To sum up, according to what had been discussed above, a conclusion could be draw safely that though the preservation of historic buildings are important, for most part they can be well conciliate with the contemporary need. As a result, the modern planners can design well a modernization city of the perfect combination with the buildings of historic and modern style.

这篇文章的逻辑非常清晰，举例也非常充分，只是有些地方论证力度不够。
呵呵，好好借鉴~

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

In the modern world, the development of modernization is progressing rapidly, and the contemporary need to(of) the ground is greatly expanded, which leads to the controversy with the protection of historic building. When faced with the issue, my opinion is that in certain environment (condition), the protection of historic building is significant(这里应该是否定语气吧), and should be given precedence over the contemporary needs, but for most part the（可删） it can be compatible with the contemporary need.

First, the protection of historic buildings is of significance, for the buildings represent a valuable record of the society’s past. We should protect them well, or will lose them forever once they are destroyed and disappeared（disappear）. Like the famous Summer palace of Qing dynasty of China, which is the top of the architecture and gardening at(in) the Qing dynasty survived from the war, if it (has) been destroyed than it will leave no chance for the people nowadays to enjoy its greatness both in art and history but only in the record. Besides, the historic buildings could play the role as the symbol of a city or a nation, such as the Status of Liberty as the delegate of New York City, and the Buckingham Palace as the symbol of London, and should be protected well.

Meanwhile, the protection of the historic building should be under a certain level, not all the buildings worth being protected, when the historic building with little value contradicts with contemporary need, then later one should go first, as the contemporary need is urgent and meets the demand of the majorities. Besides, it is feasible to protect a small part of the same historic buildings and the others could be destroyed for the modernization used, or even not to protect the building with little value in history, which can conciliate the contemporary need and the protection of historic buildings. Therefore, the building should be carefully evaluated and decided whether they are worthy to be protected or they should give the precedence to the contemporary need.
(总的来说，感觉这一段比较牵强，论证不够)

Apart from what had been recounted, for most part the protection of historic buildings and the modern plan could reach to an agreement, which means the historic and modern building could coexist. For one hand, the modern building could be well designed to conciliate with the historic ones. Take the city of Paris for example, the modern buildings are designed to be in harmony with the ancient buildings and the city is designed to extend from the famous Triumphal Arch. For the other hand, the historic building could be modified to serve modern use. The city of Amsterdam proved itself to be a good example, the appearances of historic buildings along the Rijn canal keep the same as it was for years, while the inside are used for the modern life.

To sum up, according to what had been discussed above, a conclusion could be draw safely that though the preservation of historic buildings are important, for most part they can be well conciliate with the contemporary need. As a result, the modern planners can design well a modernization city of the perfect combination with the buildings of historic and modern style.

这篇文章的逻辑非常清晰，举例也非常充分，只是有些地方论证力度不够。
呵呵，好好借鉴~