Issue 26

TOPIC: ISSUE26 - "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."

WORDS: 561 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2008-4-5 11:22:14

The speaker asserts that old buildings should yield to modern development, provided that old architectures stand on place that contemporary planners feel could be better utilized for modern purposes. However, I tend to disagree with what advocated by the arguer. Albeit sometimes priority should be given to satisfy the needs of contemporaries, we ought to protect historical buildings under most circumstances.

Admittedly, certain old residences or historical buildings are of no much value in helping the populace understand history and traditional culture. In this case, the masses may have enough reasons to pull down out-of-date architectures and construct new buildings, such as museum, modern palace, or skyline tower, on original position where historical buildings lie. Perhaps the paradigmatic example is ordinary people's houses that may be refined or cast down if city planners find the district where old residences locate is quite suitable for shopping malls which can bring considerable profits to a city, which is better for advancement of the city. In addition, in certain other cases, some historical architecture represent special old ideal, or even anti-social ideology, such as the stature of Saddam; therefore, this kind of buildings should be pull down because they defy the mainstream of development.

However, in most cases, historical standings are symbols of traditional culture of a nation. These architectures and engineering are of high value in educating young generations to appreciate precious relics of our ancestors and in exhibiting how civilized and respectful a state is. Modern world is replete with examples of historical buildings preserved, instead of exterminated by modern planners. For instance, the Forbidden City in Beijing almost becomes a symbol of China. Political leaders have not yet pull it down and make tools of its vast area, even though the best location would be utilized for constructing large shopping centers. Instead, the Forbidden City is carefully protected by city planners and open to tourists. In doing so, many folks have opportunity for visiting this relic of Qing Dynasty and will certainly have better understanding of culture of Qing period.

Furthermore, historical engineering are also a symbol of the creative ability of a nation. Consider the Great Wall in China, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Through studying this wall, modern historians can ferret out technologies used behind that wonder and have a clearer illustration of massive labors of that time, which is positive in contributing to the status of historical research. Moreover, sometimes modern planners even actively engage in finding prominent old architectures and preserve them on purpose. For instance, the Babylon City, built in Mesopotamia on the Euphrates River, was the site of the Hanging Gardens. Many historians are wanting to find whether the garden exist or not, in the present and the past. In short, when it comes to peculiar engineer that has profound meaning for our descendants, we should try our best to prevent it from being destroyed.

In summary, aside from few cases in which old building offers little value to society, in most cases we ought to consider alternative choice to put contemporary museums, malls, or towers. Once priceless and precious architectures were destroyed by us, they would never be restored to initial appearance, in which traditional culture and technology will be lost forever with the fall of historical buildings. Then, in the final analysis, I tend to disagree with the speaker's claim.