It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects shouldn’t worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree?
In recent decade the construction of buildings have been raising many of questions of its utility. Although there are some proponents of facade improvements, I think that buildings need to serve a purpose.
There are a multitude of reasons why the buildings serve a purpose. First, The construction of many buildings could act as an incentive for a decrease in some social problems. For example, An increase in social housing means more shelters for the homeless or low-income individuals, which promote significantly their living standards. Second, functional buildings could act as an deterrent for the deterioration of the environment. In fact, skyscrapers with solar power contribute to a lower degree of fossil fuel consumption for electricity production, lowering the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Additionally, landmarks with ravish facade could be fraught with some negative consequences. First, Constructing a skyscraper with impressive external appearance is invariably associated with a prohibitive cost of decorations and maintenance. This would require a high level of capital investment from the official authorities, potentially leading to economic recession. A landmark with attractive facade could be susceptible to instability and inflexibility than other buildings because of the architects’ ignorance of strict constructive codes. This means that these buildings could be conductive to collapse when it comes to the natural disasters especially earthquakes, which could culminate in some tragic fatalities.
In conclusion, I believe that utilitarian buildings could bestow net positive benefits in terms of social issues as well as a reduction in pollution. The local government is highly-recommended to subsidize these functional projects for the sustainability and development of citizens.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-05-27 | grahamoneil | 63 | view |
| 2016-08-03 | lilian.z | 83 | view |
- Figures show that some countries have an ever increasing proportion of the population who are aged 15 or younger What do you think the current and future effects of this may be for those countries 67
- The table displays trends concerning the amounts of fast food consumed in Melbourne Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but there is no agreement about whether it is the government’s responsibility. What is your opinion. 78
- Overpopulation around the world is major problem, What are the causes of this? How can problem be solved. 89
- Car ownership has increased so rapidly over the past thirty years that many cities in the world are now “one big traffic jam”. How true do you think this statement is?What measures can governments take to discourage people from using their cars. 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 378, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...cond, functional buildings could act as an deterrent for the deterioration of the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, well, for example, i think, in conclusion, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1585.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 266.0 315.596192385 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.95864661654 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.53109196083 2.80592935109 126% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605263157895 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7394911056 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.214285714 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42857142857 7.06120827912 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167503112768 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635158907603 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0480440251486 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101800942639 0.151304729494 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0367221864512 0.056905535591 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 50.2224549098 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.29 12.4159519038 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.63 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.