Should the government preserve old buildings or build new ones

In some circumstances, keeping the cultural tradition and modernizing the city service are contradictory. While the general trend of the city service, especially the modernization and industrial development, will naturally be strengthened as the growth of economic rise, some old buildings become the hot potato for the government in that their historical meanings hurdle the plan of modernization.

On the one hand, many people argue that old buildings should be closed and even reconstructed since they are not useful any more. One example can be found in the statement of Nanjing government’s decision on removing the central theatre that used to be the symbolic architecture of the city, which shows the reason is that the theatre cannot continue to work because of its weak and old design. This phenomenon frequently happens in contemporary society, which demonstrates that these buildings are becoming the barriers of modernization since most of them located in the central area where many new buildings will replace them. From this perspective, keeping the old buildings is the waste of social resources.

On the other hand, a number of opponents believe that it is too narrow to claim that the old buildings without economic value are useless and should be abandoned. The evolution of the palace museum provides an excellent evidence of how to maintain the old buildings without wasting valuable social resource. Situated at the golden area of Beijing, the palace museum now is redesigned to be a well-known public place for citizens as the symbol of not only Beijing but the Chinese culture. Meanwhile, the economic income brought by selling tickets and souvenirs offset the potential financial loss and the sinking cost caused by the maintenance. Besides, the critical point is the museum and other relevant old buildings are bearers of traditional culture, reminding us of the splendid history and encouraging new generations to achieve greater purposes.

For my standpoint, the extreme opinion of destroying all old buildings for new ones is awash with short-sight bias, which merely eradicates our cultural foundations and sites of memories. I believe wherever the old building is, if it need to be removed should depend on the professional assessment of its historical and economic values.

Votes
Average: 9.2 (2 votes)

Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, if, so, then, well, while, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1955.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 365.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35616438356 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01281929886 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572602739726 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.8590734938 49.4020404114 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.384615385 106.682146367 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0769230769 20.7667163134 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46153846154 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397394793723 0.244688304435 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136020510705 0.084324248473 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0830126199347 0.0667982634062 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2352027613 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0818796828378 0.056905535591 144% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 13.0946893788 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 50.2224549098 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.