雪地裸体跪求拍砖~~·

Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?

It is not rare to see that old, historic buildings are destroyed in order to build new and modern ones. Some people insist on replacement of the old buildings, for the reason that a building constructed several centuries ago is not strong enough to support itself and may cause damage to citizens. The idea is strongly opposed by people who indicate that it is a money-consuming project to rebuild modern buildings, especially skyscrapers, and old buildings, which symbolize different periods of development of the city, are historic sites of significant value to preserve. From my perspective, I totally agree with the latter idea.

No issue is more crucial than the one that construction of modern buildings would cost plenty of money which is sure a heavy burden for the local government. No one can deny that it is more essential to solve problems such as protecting forests from disappearance. As far as I am concerned, deforestation would cause a series of other damages like animals’ extinction due to destruction of their habitats. Consequently, from my own viewpoint, the big sum of money would be better invested into such areas mentioned above, which is meaningful to our world.

Historic value is another head and chief reason I prefer to put here. Old buildings are often associated with impressive events in the past such as war and peace, struggling for independence, scientific achievements. To give as a demonstration, in America, the building where Lincoln’s office located would recall people living in the duration of civil war memories of the fierce and cruel scenes in order to emancipate the slaves. When people are reminded of the war, they might be shocked in the heart and have a deep feeling how precious today’s life is! Therefore, such buildings act as a positive educational role in promoting democracy and world peace.

Though preservation of old building enjoys numerable advantages, it also has its own demerit. Old buildings, which aged at least several centuries, tend to be vulnerable through decades of erosion from chemical substance, such as various types of acids. It is a hazardous threat to people’s security of life and treasure because it may collapse at some day!

All in all, though the advantages of constructing modern buildings enjoys are considerable, it cannot compete with the benefits preservation of old ones leads to, when the two main reasons mentioned above are taken into consideration. Some people may still remain unconvinced, the reasons I have analyzed could at least make them more aware of the various dimensions of the issue under discussion. In fact, not only do I prefer to preserve old buildings, but also prefer to renew those which are not strong enough to hold itself and may break down one day.

开头结尾都不错，小佩服下楼主

但是个人认为楼主第二段有些问题” No one can deny that it is “ that指代不明，为何不直接说MONEY呢？怕用重了用financial incomes也可以，反正就是钱
而且觉得题目问的是“preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings” 主要问的是保护还是毁坏历史建筑，没问现代建筑有什么不好（个人理解……）

而且楼主从钱上拉到环保有点牵强（万金由吧），不如举个例子，说自己HOMETOWN为了SHOW OFF，把用于环保的钱盖楼，然后现在环境怎么怎么差什么的说上更平滑一些~

总觉得楼主大纲是说了一点MODEN BUDLING 不好，一点历史建筑好，又一点历史建筑的不好，有点乱
不如说两点保存历史建筑的好+一点保存历史建筑的坏或者两点保存历史建筑的好和拆毁建现代建筑的好处，这样思路看上去比较清楚