- UID
- 695508
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-11-23
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
第一次写，不知道有没有方向性的大问题。。。
题目：When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence to the preservation of historic buildings.
Admittedly, historic buildings have their irreplaceable value. First of all, from the view point of architecture, old buildings display the ancient people's wit and technique far different from today, which can edify current architectural style and inspire architects. For example, the house of paliarment in Lodnon, one of the architectural masterworks in the world, is a typical representation of gothic style in old times. so it is not only the old building itself, but also the ideas and inspiration derived form it make it necessary to be preserved. Besides, on the level of history, old buildings represent a certain period of time, and many historical elements would be involved in these buildings, if they are removed, the memory of that time will disappear. For instance, Russia's winter palace, as the most important place of the October Evolution, has its unique value of the historical events. And the china's Tiananmen Square for the founding of People's Republic of china. Such old buildings' existence, when related to history, transcend theirs value. Therefore their demolishment will be of great lose for a nation.
However, it doesn't mean old buildings should always be given priory to modern purpose. When compared with human interest, the value of old buildings pale at once. As society develops, the area of land is decreasing sharply. The economic value of land is becoming more and more remarkable. So if in the poor area where people face the problem of existence, an old building occupied too much area, which can be use for economic development, then there shouldn’t be any hesitation to raze it. Because all spiritual needs base on material, artistic value means nothing to who are bothered with food. Similarly, if in a village with poor education, old buildings occupied the place for a nearby school campus should make compromise. For another thing, some old buildings indeed impede the city's unique planning. This is why so many problems appear in the villages inside city, which are far different from the city environment around it in custom and economy. As a result, conflicts are immerged and many inconvenience, disharmony, even security problems will be generated. Under this circumstance, the preservation undoubtedly should give away to the modern purpose.
In other situations, which I expect most, the modern development can reconcile with the preservation of old buildings. After some clever adaptation, some old buildings are changed for modern uses. As a result, the old buildings can bring significant economic benefits and be preserved well at the same time. For example 798 art zone once faced the danger of being pulled down for its useless in making profit, yet later some local artists made use of it, decorated it as their places to work, display their works or communicate with other artists. Soon 798 art zone appeared with a new and prosperous look. As more people come there to visit and buy artistic works, the old buildings survived and prompt local economy.
In sum, whether modern purpose should be given precedence to the preservation of old buildings is not a simple problem, we must consider every possible situation and weight the pros and cons of from the view of both modern development and artistic value. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-4-11 01:21:30
收藏
收藏
