Should government tear down traditional buildings and replaced them with totally modern buildings?
With the skyrocketing development of modern society, there is an increasing demand for more buildings in cities. The government tore down numerous traditional buildings and replaced them with totally modern buildings. Some individuals indicate that constructing new buildings are of more significance for the government rather than preserving historic ones. However, others hold an opposite idea. From my perspective, I agree with the latter opinion.
Admittedly, replacing historic and traditional buildings are significant for the government, since old buildings are always too dangerous for citizens to live inland several historic buildings are in such a poor design that the total impression of the city is negatively impacted by them. Actually, the government has some reason to construct more new buildings to meet citizens’ demands and show greater impressions of a city. However, I still suggest that the government is supposed to emphasize the protection of historic buildings.
First of all, traditional and historic buildings are symbols of cities, and sometimes even the culture. There are some traditional buildings which are of great research importance, thus we should pay great attention to preserve them. For instance, the Forbidden City in the heart of Beijing must be paid a lot attention. It is one of the biggest imperial palaces and ancient buildings all over the world. With such a long history, dating back to Qing Dynasty, it records the history pace of Chinese traditional and rich culture, especially good for people to get familiar with China. Although constructing modern new buildings helps improve the impressions of Beijing, the Forbidden City is the symbol of Beijing. Without it, Beijing must lose great attractions to the rest of the world. Thus, preserving these historic buildings is more critical.
What's more, by preserving traditional and historic buildings and displaying them as a tourist attraction, government can stimulate more rapid improvement of economy rather than by building new ones. In other words, a lot of people travel to one city only because of the special scenery there. If all the cities are nearly the same, such as the skyscrapers, the wide squares and etc, tourists would feel bored. However, traditional and historic buildings themselves are special enough. For example, in Chongqing--- one famous city in southwest China--- the government constructs a specially preserved street of historic buildings, named the Republic of China Street. All the buildings there were constructed in the Republic of China. Every year, this street attracts hundreds and thousands of tourists around China. As a result, this flourishing tourism stimulates the economy within that area. Many restaurants open there, and a lot of unemployed citizens gain new opportunities to work. Protecting the traditional buildings finally lead to positive impacts for cities.
Based on the discussion above, in spite of the fact that constructing new buildings is crucial for the government to some degree, I still hold the idea that preserving historic buildings benefits a city more.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-09-01 | Copperface | 70 | view |
- Young people today are less dependent on their parents than in the past 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Your job has more effect on your happiness than your living environment does 73
- Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the future of society as a whole. 86
- To improve the quality of education, universities should spend money on salaries university professors. 73
- people nowadays spend much more time than they should using text messages and new technologies such as social media to communicate with each other 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...e historic buildings is more critical. Whats more, by preserving traditional and his...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'for example', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a result', 'first of all', 'in other words', 'in spite of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.246350364964 0.229887763892 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.124087591241 0.158761421928 78% => OK
Adjectives: 0.125912408759 0.0866891130778 145% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0565693430657 0.046263068375 122% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0237226277372 0.0685040099705 35% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125912408759 0.118717715034 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0346715328467 0.0351676179071 99% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96490162577 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.021897810219 0.0309702414327 71% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00188951952338 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.107664233577 0.0887237588012 121% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00912408759124 0.0209618222197 44% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00182481751825 0.0139019557991 13% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3124.0 2387.08602151 131% => OK
No of words: 483.0 408.028673835 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.46790890269 5.86048508987 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.48200974243 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.430641821946 0.338922669872 127% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.35817805383 0.251872472559 142% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.285714285714 0.174417080927 164% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.192546583851 0.112833075102 171% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96490162577 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511387163561 0.524397521467 98% => OK
Word variations: 59.9874432337 59.2087087015 101% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.6684587814 131% => OK
Sentence length: 17.8888888889 20.5533526081 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9048060092 48.84282405 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.703703704 120.699889404 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8888888889 20.5533526081 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.644075263715 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.5376344086 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.54480286738 18% => OK
Readability: 53.7066942719 45.7405998639 117% => OK
Elegance: 1.99107142857 1.45489161554 137% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.266076209921 0.300154397459 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0914220177338 0.103427244359 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0799834705081 0.0752933317313 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.48429841746 0.497263757937 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.178744693227 0.151897553556 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113907885183 0.114077575197 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135981278762 0.0781384742642 174% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.476971603459 0.336927656856 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0600286954128 0.067059652881 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207534261774 0.210909579961 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.096790011719 0.0618886996521 156% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8870967742 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.86379928315 155% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.91756272401 142% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 8.42114695341 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 2.4623655914 122% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.75985663082 72% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 13.6433691756 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.