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.
For the past few decades, the world has witnessed an unprecedented population growth and urbanization. This has led to the shrinkage in the land available to meet several needs of the citizens. Old buildings in any city, representing its history, culture and art, have special importance warranting their preservation. The author proposes that when there is a competing interest between preserving old buildings and catering the modern needs, the latter should get precedence. Considering that both the interests are significant, priority of one over the other cannot be fixed indiscriminately and a case-by-case evaluation of pros and cons is required as such.
Admittedly, the primary obligation of any government towards citizens is to fulfil their basic needs of accommodation, health care, education, etc. Buildings from past era may not be compatible with the needs of a highly populated town centre and may lack effective utilization of space. Moreover, their maintenance is often costly without which there is always a risk of collapse thus threatening lives of its users. Therefore, the author’s proposition is justified when an unremarkable old building needs to be demolished to make ground for a multi-speciality hospital to serve the growing healthcare demands of the citizenry. Similarly, the statement holds merit when few of the many similar archaic cottages sit on a site proposed for constructing a school for underprivileged students. However, otherwise, the general precedence of modern purposes over preservation of historical assets is flawed.
Firstly, a decision about demolishing any old building for utilitarian needs must be taken on a case-by-case basis after weighing all the benefits and losses. An ancient building might well be the place where a historical event took place or a historic personality lived. It may also be the few of the surviving constructions from a bygone era. In such cases, the benefits of preserving such buildings by far outweighs the gains of serving any modern purpose.
Moreover, apart from historic importance the proposition fails to incorporate the aesthetic, intellectual and economic, loss incurred when old buildings are replaced. Ancient structures epitomize a generation’s architectural style and art so much so that the UN has declared many such structures as world heritage sites whose demolition is prohibited. These sites become tourist hotspots thereby contributing to the economy of the city. Replacing them with a concrete jungle would not only devoid the city of its past culture and tourism revenues but would also deprive many art and architecture enthusiasts of significant knowledge and learning resource. The ludicrous idea of replacing old buildings in Rome with sky-scrapers, where it would neither become New York nor will remain Rome, is enough to corroborate this point.
The statement is further flawed in its underlying assumption that destroying old building is the only solution to fulfil modern purposes. While population and immigration has risen tremendously asking for more space, there are many other alternatives besides suggesting the drastic step. Better city planning and even expanding the boundaries of the city can also serve the purpose. The proposition also precludes the possibility of co-existence of old buildings and modern amenities. There are myriad examples of well maintained and at times retrofitted ancient structures catering for the modern needs such as Connaught place in Delhi, CST railway station in Mumbai and so on.
In the final analysis, preservation of old buildings over modern developments might become the second priority in certain cases especially concerning the very basic necessities of the city. However, contrary to the generalized proposition, any such priority must be fixed on an individual basis given the historical, cultural, aesthetic and economic significance of old structures. Furthermore, alternatives ways to accommodate both the needs must be explored.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-29 | Zahid6400 | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-06 | wopona8219 | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-08 | Isolus | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-29 | swetha_14r | 54 | view |
| 2022-09-28 | Teyyub | 50 | view |
- The best test of an argument is the argument s ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint 85
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. 83
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. 66
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 106, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... incorporate the aesthetic, intellectual and economic, loss incurred when old bui...
^^
Line 7, column 573, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun art seems to be countable; consider using: 'many arts'.
Suggestion: many arts
...tourism revenues but would also deprive many art and architecture enthusiasts of signifi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 160, Rule ID: BASIC_FUNDAMENTALS[1]
Message: Use simply 'necessities'.
Suggestion: necessities
...in cases especially concerning the very basic necessities of the city. However, contrary to the g...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, similarly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, apart from, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3405.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 611.0 442.535393258 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5728314239 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97176167858 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1905567482 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 329.0 215.323595506 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 1083.6 704.065955056 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2878614123 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.607142857 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8214285714 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.32142857143 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.360855046194 0.243740707755 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0880959688831 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0777307297336 0.0758088955206 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193093473258 0.150359130593 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596642916881 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.1392134831 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 195.0 100.480337079 194% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.