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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The society that we live in is constantly developing. The infrastructure of populous cities like New York are always evolving, and one cannot walk a single block without running into some type of construction. According to the prompt, when old buildings stand in the way of modern development the new structure should be given precedence. I moderately disagree with suggestion due to the fact that old buildings serve as a preservation of history. However, it may be acceptable to tear these areas down due to dangerous structural issues.
First, the preservation of old buildings is important because they serve as a way to remember the history of the area or even a significant time period. An example of a building holding historical relevance is Mount Vernon, or George Washington’s home. This beautiful site has been preserved for many years and is visited by thousands of people each year. If one was to take a tour inside one would learn extensive history and possibly feel as if they traveled back in time. Another example is the University of Virginia (UVA). UVA stands on the grounds cultivated by Thomas Jefferson back in 1820s. The campus serves as a historical place and many of its students take pride in the history that is able to be preserved and shared with many. Both of these examples sit on a vast piece of property and if they were to be torn down there would be copious acres to build modern infrastructure on, but the important history of the buildings would be lost forever.
However, there is a circumstance in which tearing down an older building to create a modern development could be beneficial such as structural issues. It is factual that buildings deteriorate every day, and when this reaches a certain point it may be unsafe for humans to enter. When this situation occurs, it is understandable to tear down a building and give precedence to modern development. Nevertheless, if the building holds significant historical relevance, there should always be an attempt to repair the damages. For example, the Washington Monument in the District of Columbia has had countless structural issues, but engineers have been working tirelessly for many years to repair the monument. It would be easier to tear the whole structure down and build a more modern one, but then all of its history would be lost, and it would longer attract the substantial crowds that it does today.
Overall this issue is very complex and there are no easy answers. However, because of the statements made above, I believe that it is important to preserve timeless buildings due to the history they hold over tearing them down for new developments.
| 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 following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis Ten years ago as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housi 62
- 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 Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you a 62
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 590, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1820s'.
Suggestion: in the 1820s
...nds cultivated by Thomas Jefferson back in 1820s. The campus serves as a historical plac...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2218.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 448.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95089285714 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8635661266 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513392857143 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 697.5 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.962720764 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.619047619 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85714285714 5.21951772744 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32727584606 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937214766545 0.0831039109588 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0868962578582 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18978999892 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774859079382 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.