A26 真诚球拍 写的好辛苦 我的第一篇。。。写得好辛苦。。。时间也很离谱
[align=left][font=Arial][size=4][size=10.5pt][/size][/size][/font][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt]题目：[/size][size=10.5pt]ISSUE 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."[/size][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt]字数：[/size][/size][/font][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt]568 C7@2s!DR[ rz1c
[/size][size=10.5pt]日期：[/size][size=10.5pt]2008-7-8[/size][size=10.5pt][/size][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]"[/m |4l U^O
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][size=10.5pt][font=Arial][size=3]I must to say I reject the author's statement. While it is true that historic buildings might not adapt to contemporary needs as well as modern buildings, but that does not in anyway mean that we should give the priority to modern development rather than preserve the old buildings. I think old buildings represent a city's context. Backout of them equals to erasing the history and memorize of the city. I concede that new buildings have more merits to comfort people for their fresh appearance, prefect facilities, but I don't think this is the only path that give precedence to new building can achieve the contemporary needs.[/size][/font][/size][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]0k Tf:U"F8B+w
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt][/size][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]7A+m-U&vj#f MW9dZ6f
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=3]Before razing the old buildings, planner should justly evaluate the unique value and significance of them, some historic buildings looks like the antique appearance and useless, in fact hold the high historic or aesthetic value, even represent a city's context, any one if destroying them equal to chop up the city's history and never could be recovered any more, which would be a unpardonable mistake of architectural civilization. For instance, the SoHo area is famous now in New York. Government ever planned to ruin the cast-iron buildings replacing by modern constructions and highways for their utilitarian target and meeting contemporary needs, but encountered sharply object voicing come form regional residents for these cast-iron buildings represent the bygone glory and symbolize the industrialized era. Nowadays, these old iron buildings absorb a great deal of artists and their studios to do various art works in them which bring these buildings new lives. The value of historic construction exceeds the building per se and preserving mean to continue the context of the area, which any other new development plan could not replace.[/size][/font][/align][align=left][font=Arial][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt][/size][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]F5M J(` C0g(Q9K
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][size=10.5pt][font=Arial][size=3]It isn't a forceful reason that only to raze old building we may get modern development. In other word old buildings can meet contemporary needs as good as modern buildings. For example, "The new world" is a block with a distinct building style in the centre business district of Shanghai, China. Government preserves these stone two-floor old housing who are built in 1930's for regional residents removing out the houses many years ago. Now, these stone houses are used for coffee bars, taprooms and saloons, however them are look like 80 years ago. Too many high modern skyscraper stand in CBD which can certainly enhance the regional economy but can also make people feel visually tired and tensional and choking. Practically “The new world” now has become the people’s most preference area, accordingly its commercial value is rapidly increasing. We can see that even if the historic buildings could meet the contemporary needs very well.[/size][/font][/size][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=3]Admittedly, considering the security and safety of historic building is necessary, especially the building in bad state and with low-value. These constructions is easier to collapse if break out the disaster to threaten people's lives. Only in such state I think we should make a modern plan to replace them.[/size][/font][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]_e^8R zna z!g ?
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=3][size=10.5pt][/size][/size][/font][/align][font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font]Z4e y)@'j1k2gM%x*y
[font=Arial][size=3][/size][/font][align=left][font=Arial][size=4][size=10.5pt][size=3]In sum, preservation of historic building should certainly give priority over building a new one. On the one hand no one could determine hastily to push down anything representing the bygone civilization and city's context, otherwise one destroys oneself. On the other hand I don't think meeting the modern needs stands on the opposing position to preservation historic buildings. I believe governments and planners have the intelligences and capabilities to "kill the two birds with one stone".[/size] [/size][/size][/font][/align]1nqNdn#s'L
[[i] 本帖最后由 fiona_1985 于 2008-7-8 18:15 编辑 [/i]] 好长~~
页:
[1]