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.
Change is an inevitable part of our lives. Every aspect of our lives is subject to modernization. While it is important for us to adapt to these changes, it would be wrong to completely let go of our past. Demolishing old buildings, that possess cultural significance, should not be the first option that planners resort to, when in need of space to construct modern buildings.
Presumably, the lack of sufficient space for construction is the reason modern planners decide to replace old buildings. However, planners must realize that erecting new buildings in place of old ones is only a temporary solution to this problem. We must make use of the technological advances we have made in the fields of architecture and civil engineering to construct buildings that make use of space more effectively. We now have the ability to build tall skyscrapers that can accomodate a larger number of people. Why not build such buildings rather than building in place of old structures.
A city’s ancient buildings usually hold deep cultural significance and are an important part of the city’s heritage. They preserve the aesthetic qualities and beauty of the cities. These buildings serve as a reminder of the city’s history and are also an embodiment of the architectural styles of different civilizations that inhabited these cities in the past. There is a lot that modern architects can learn from these structures that were built without any modern machinery hundreds of years ago.
Old buildings are not just a source of beauty and inspiration. They can also provide a steady monetory flow in the form of tourism. This money can be utilized to either restore old buildings or be used by the administration in different forms for the betterment of the city. In such cases it is actually advantageous to have old buildings than to destroy them.
However, not all old buildings are of cultural importance. In some cases it is actually better to demolish old buildings to make space for new ones. For example, buildings that are of no significance which do not attract tourists can be demolished. Also, when buildings are so old that they are crumbling and cannot be restored, it makes sense to replace them with modern structures that will actually benefit the society.
In conclusion, modern planners must be diligent and take informed decisions on wheather or not an old building can be torn down to make space for a new one. Buildings that are historically significant and those that show how the city has evolved over time must be preserved. Destroying these buildings must be a last resort for the modern planners. Building new structures over old buildings for modern purposes is acceptable as long as a culturally significant part of the city is not lost.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-21 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | vikey | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | chagens96 | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-22 | tanishqjain1002 | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-21 | Charan H S | 50 | view |
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 87
- 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. 50
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 50
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company."According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any 20
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lized to either restore old buildings or be used by the administration in differe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, so, while, for example, in conclusion, in some cases
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 : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2325.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 462.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03246753247 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95161042236 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478354978355 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 729.9 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.8172404637 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.0 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.48 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37210715397 0.243740707755 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110267267695 0.0831039109588 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860603367108 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20832046941 0.150359130593 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.075753724134 0.0667264976115 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.