When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The technological advancements of the 21st century, improved every known sphere of the human actions, and construction field is not an exception. Prompt suggests that the modern urban buildings should be given favour over the obsolete ones. In my not so humble opinion, I mostly agree with the statement that the novel urban development should be preferenciated over the conservation of the outmoded buildings for the following reasons.
To begin with, in some particular instances old constructions are plausible source of attraction for tourists. Thus, by attracting tourists these old buildings would play a key role in overall development of the city, as they would be the major source of income. For instance, one can exemplify ancient cities of Italy as Pagma, Rome, and Venice. Most of these cities have been renowned as the major touristic site in Europe because of their history and buildings which are the artifacts and proof of the sublime European ancient traditions. The touristic flow of cities estimated in hundreds of millions every year, such a massive number of tourists definitely contribute to the well-being and development of those places. From the example, it’s reasonable to conclude that the old buildings could be conducive to the local society and preserving them is important.
However, what if these outmoded embers of the past have no historic value or any ability to entice large quantity of people? In that instance they’re not only useless but they can be deleterious in effect for the locals. Usually most of the constructions that was built by humans are not intended to last for a centuries, most of them was aimed to last for a half of a century or so. As the time moves forward, buildings become more and more rickety and without any adequate service most of them would not survive even the half of the projected life-expectancy. For instance, take the numbers of casualties that have been caused by sudden collapse of the obsolete buildings on a global scale. Every year approximately five to ten million people are dying because of dilapidated housing and their collapse. Given example illustrates the pernicious effec that old buildings could and would cause in the modern society.
Furthermore, convenient and essential infrastructure are imperative for the well-being of the local society. As an example, imagine that the local district are in dearth of the public hospital which can provide essential healthcare for the people and the construction of such paramount facility is being delayed over the concern whether the outmoded defunct factory facility should be demolitied. It may seem like such an example is unrealistic, nevertheless the contemporary life is full of such precedents, where the ‘valuable’ assets such us former industry facilities or any other sort of buildings are considered to have some value. This kind of vision deters the sustainable urban development of most cities, yet the majority of us understand that is a paramaount to develope in a clever way.
To sum up, modern construction planning should be superior for the reasons that I mentioned above. Nonetheless, the valuableness of the antiquated buildings should not be underestimated, as in some cases their existence could be conducive to the people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a century' or simply 'centuries'?
Suggestion: a century; centuries
... by humans are not intended to last for a centuries, most of them was aimed to last for a h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 783, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a clever way" with adverb for "clever"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...rstand that is a paramaount to develope in a clever way. To sum up, modern construction plan...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, thus, well, for instance, kind of, sort of, in some cases, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2770.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 530.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22641509434 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9837199181 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 215.323595506 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511320754717 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 878.4 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6017195116 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.909090909 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0909090909 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.81818181818 5.21951772744 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289028229444 0.243740707755 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868322343238 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734556384053 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177137545907 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467192470679 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 100.480337079 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.