TestMagic

sow1225 · 11-22-2002, 11:32 AM

Hi guys,
Please look into this one...I targetted for 40 mins...but as always I am exceeding time....I am still working on that....

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

Buildings in a society does represent the past life a society. Both, past and future are equally important to a society. Whether modern development should be given preference over historic buildings depends on the situation and purpose of contemporary needs. However, if a situation arise that historic buildings are standing as hindrance to the modern development, It would be more beneficial if the preference is given to the modern buildings over historic buildings.

Historic buildings represent the societies past life culture, traditions that’s been preserved and maintained since ages. Crucial part of the society is to pass on the traditions and culture that has been preserved. Historic buildings are one of the elements of the society that can be used for this purpose. But, buildings may lack contemporary facilities that may be necessary for everyday life.

Lets look into an example. India was once very rich with kings and kingdoms. There are so many great forts left behind by those kings. Some are preserved as historic buildings. Some others are changed into hotels and resorts for government tourist funds. If historic buildings are used to serve contemporary needs, it would serve both purposes. It not only satisfies the contemporary needs, but also preserves the history. That way, buildings do not get destroyed and history can be remembered in every way.

Some might argue that renovating the historic buildings to contemporary needs may loose its authenticity. Its good to preserve history but, one has to think and move on with the future. Living without modern development and everyday needs may not make give a meaning to the contemporary life.

On the other hand, construction of modern buildings by destroying every historic building on purpose is not good. Preserving historic life and promoting them using those buildings involves everyone in the society. For instance, some city builders try to replace some historic buildings for their own selfish reasons. Such purposes should be thoroughly evaluated.

In sum, I concur that preference between modern development and historic buildings depends on the situation. If historic buildings stand as a hurdle to the modern development, it would be more beneficial if the preference is given to modern buildings.

demolala · 11-24-2002, 11:06 AM

Please read this and let me know where i stand, my exam is thursday.

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

It is true that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past and as such it should be preserved but one would find out that not all the historic buildings are worth preserving.
I will only subscribe to the idea of preserving only those buildings that have a significant mark in our society's history such as the King's Palace, colonial masters' building, missionaries' houses just to mention few.
For instance, in Nigeria the house where Mary Slessor lived was preserved because she played a significant role of stopping the killing of twins in my country. Also there is a rock under which people of a certain comunity found refuge each time a superior community comes to invade their community, such rock was preserved as a tourist attraction and people of that community go there once in a year as a mark of remembrance. I believed that it is only structures like these that should be preserved.

In the absence of those kinds of structures mentioned above, I am of the oppinion that modern planners should make better use of the old building for modern purposes.
Moreover, most historic building are devoid of the necessary facilities required in our modern life, they are therefore neglected to dilapidate thereby constituting environmental nuissance to the community.

If there are modern schools, hospitals, recreational centres, industries to be built and we refused to build it because we are trying to preserve the old buildings, it is going to be at the detriment of our kids that we are trying to keep those historic buildings for.

Many people would like to argue that Historic buildings could be rennovated to serve thesame modern purposes. Yes, old buildings could be given a facelift inorder to meet up with the modern day an age buildings but by so doing, the building will loose it's originality and the purpose of preserving it would have been defeated.

In sum,I acknowledge that historical buildings should be preserved but we should be selective about it, so that it does not distrupt the modern development of our society which aims at meeting our comtemporary needs.

Sri · 11-25-2002, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sow1225

Hi guys,
Please look into this one...I targetted for 40 mins...but as always I am exceeding time....I am still working on that.... Sow, I got ur message, sorry I couldn't answer ur call as we were out on a trip during the weekend. I will call u today. And now getting back to business, my comments on this topic are in blue

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

Buildings in a society does represent the past life of a society. Both, past and future are equally important to a society. Whether modern development should be given preference over historic buildings depends on the situation and purpose of contemporary needs. However, if a situation arise s that historic buildings are standing as hindrance to the modern development, shouldn't be a capital letter as it is not the beginning of a sentence here It would be more beneficial if the preference is given to the modern buildings over historic buildings.

Historic buildings represent the societie missed apostrophe s past life culture, traditions that’s been preserved and maintained since ages. Crucial part of the society is to pass on the traditions and culture that has been preserved. Historic buildings are one of the elements of the society that can be used for this purpose. But, buildings may lack contemporary facilities that may be necessary for everyday life.

Lets look into an example. India was once very rich with kings and kingdoms. There are so many great forts left behind by those kings. Some are preserved as historic buildings. Some others are changed into hotels and resorts for government tourist funds. If historic buildings are used to serve contemporary needs, it would serve both purposes. It not only satisfies the contemporary needs, but also preserves the history. That way, buildings do not get destroyed and history can be remembered in every way.

Some might argue that renovating the historic buildings to contemporary needs may loose its authenticity. Its good to preserve history missed comma but, one has to think and move on with the future. Living without modern development and everyday needs may not make li'l ambiguity in the sentence give a meaning to the contemporary life.

On the other hand, construction of modern buildings by destroying every historic building on purpose is not good. Preserving historic life and promoting them using those buildings involves everyone in the society. For instance, some city builders try to replace some historic buildings for their own selfish reasons. Such purposes should be thoroughly evaluated.

In sum, I concur that preference between modern development and historic buildings depends on the situation. If historic buildings stand as a hurdle to the modern development, it would be more beneficial if the preference is given to modern buildings.

Sowmya, that's an excellent essay there. But for the minor flaws here and there (which I guess is very well ok), ur essay is perfect. Good going and I wish u good luck for ur test.

Cheers
-Sri.

Neha123 · 11-28-2002, 05:26 AM

HI Sri,

Following are my points on the same topic. Please let me know where I stand.

"Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."

Building does represent the societie's past. But in this era of contemporary world, both past and future are equally important. And with this view, I would like to state that we should preserve and respect the old culture which can be seen in this old building so also plan accordingly to make this building renovated in pace with the modern development.

Past has been of great influnce for the contemporary generation. It is the old building and monuments that are the only remnant of this past history. It is this buildings and monuments which reflects past history's culture, tradition and the old beliefs. If this buildings are demolished just for the sake of new development then it would be a harsh step in not preserving the old culture and tradition as no one would like to destroy thier old culture and traditions.

Most of this monuments and buildings are standing since eon of time. Naturally, most of them are in dilapilated state. Also this building does not have the modern amenities of todays buildings. Instead, if this buildings are renovated with the modern means than it will solve both the purpose that is maintaing the old culture and tradition keeping in pace with the contemporary culture. And the same is also in progress in most of the world famous monuments and buildings. For example, many forts and old buildings in India are converted to luxirious hotels by the Indian government. Those building which are not so big are converted into either Museum or as a small restaurant.

However, there are certain buildings or monuments which are in such a bad conditions that they can hardly be renovated. If such buildings are hindering in most important locality where the modern planner want's to build there a School or a Hospital then I think there is no harm in destroying this building so as make the future generation or to help the needed one using this land. Offcourse, before destroying such building all the circumstances should be taken into consideration.

In conclusion, the best possible use of old buildings and monuments should be done so as to maintain and preserve the rich old cultural heritage keeping in pace with the contemporary culture.

gautam · 11-28-2002, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sow1225

Hi guys,
Please look into this one...I targetted for 40 mins...but as always I am exceeding time....I am still working on that....

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

Buildings in a society does represent the past life a society. Both, past and future are equally important to a society. Whether modern development should be given preference over historic buildings depends on the situation and purpose of contemporary needs. However, if a situation arise that historic buildings are standing as hindrance to the modern development, It would be more beneficial if the preference is given to the modern buildings over historic buildings.

Historic buildings represent the societies past life culture, traditions that’s been preserved and maintained since ages. Crucial part of the society is to pass on the traditions and culture that has been preserved. Historic buildings are one of the elements of the society that can be used for this purpose. But, buildings may lack contemporary facilities that may be necessary for everyday life.

Lets look into an example. India was once very rich with kings and kingdoms. There are so many great forts left behind by those kings. Some are preserved as historic buildings. Some others are changed into hotels and resorts for government tourist funds. If historic buildings are used to serve contemporary needs, it would serve both purposes. It not only satisfies the contemporary needs, but also preserves the history. That way, buildings do not get destroyed and history can be remembered in every way.

Some might argue that renovating the historic buildings to contemporary needs may loose its authenticity. Its good to preserve history but, one has to think and move on with the future. Living without modern development and everyday needs may not make give a meaning to the contemporary life.

On the other hand, construction of modern buildings by destroying every historic building on purpose is not good. Preserving historic life and promoting them using those buildings involves everyone in the society. For instance, some city builders try to replace some historic buildings for their own selfish reasons. Such purposes should be thoroughly evaluated.

In sum, I concur that preference between modern development and historic buildings depends on the situation. If historic buildings stand as a hurdle to the modern development, it would be more beneficial if the preference is given to modern buildings.

Hi,

Well written essay, but could help if some more examples were provided. Like the Red Fort in Delhi is a hindrance cos its not well maintained and can break at any time(or did some part of it fall at some time). There is also a house in Bangalore which is almost a century old and is still not renovated(this I was told sometime ago). As long as it is renovated and maintained it can be kept, but otherwise its best to move into modern developmental areas. Examples such as this would definitely help. No need to be factually correct, make up some examples if you don't know any.

Overall I would still give it 5.99 as I believe no essay can be perfect to the mark and get a 6/6.

gautam · 11-28-2002, 03:39 PM

Well I am not sri, but here goes :-

First we will look at the grammer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Neha123
Building does represent the societie's past. But in this era of contemporary world, both past and future are equally important. And with this view, I would like to state that we should preserve and respect the old culture which can be seen in this old building so also plan accordingly to make this building renovated in pace with the modern development.

It starts of with a grammatical/spelling error in my opinion.
"Buildings represen a society's past."
or if you want to stick to singular tense
"A building represents a society's past."

I would like Erin to comment on this but as I seem to understand using But and And for starting a scentence is bad. You seem to be consistently doing it. Use it sparingly and only when you feel the scentence will become to big.

Quote:

Originally posted by Neha123
Past has been of great influnce for the contemporary generation. It is the old building and monuments that are the only remnant of this past history. It is this buildings and monuments which reflects past history's culture, tradition and the old beliefs. If this buildings are demolished just for the sake of new development then it would be a harsh step in not preserving the old culture and tradition as no one would like to destroy thier old culture and traditions.

Again singular and plural error arises here.
"It is this buildings and monuments which reflects past history's culture, tradition and the old beliefs. If this buildings are demolished just for the sake of new development "

should be

"It is "these" buildings and monuments which reflects past history's culture, tradition and the old beliefs. If "these" buildings are demolished just for the sake of new development "

Quote:

Originally posted by Neha123
Most of this monuments and buildings are standing since eon of time. Naturally, most of them are in dilapilated state. Also this building does not have the modern amenities of todays buildings. Instead, if this buildings are renovated with the modern means than it will solve both the purpose that is maintaing the old culture and tradition keeping in pace with the contemporary culture. And the same is also in progress in most of the world famous monuments and buildings. For example, many forts and old buildings in India are converted to luxirious hotels by the Indian government. Those building which are not so big are converted into either Museum or as a small restaurant.

Again a conjuction used for starting a scentence. Also in my opinion there is an overuse of the word contemporary in this essay.

The line
"Those building which are not so big are converted into either Museum or as a small restaurant."
should be
"Those "buildings" which are not very big are either converted
into "Museums" or "small restaurants"."

Quote:

Originally posted by Neha123
However, there are certain buildings or monuments which are in such a bad conditions that they can hardly be renovated. If such buildings are hindering in most important locality where the modern planner want's to build there a School or a Hospital then I think there is no harm in destroying this building so as make the future generation or to help the needed one using this land. Offcourse, before destroying such building all the circumstances should be taken into consideration.

It should be "such a bad condition" and not "such a bad conditions."
Also try not using the phrase "I thinik." Lots of grammatical errors - read the scentence below and rephrase it.

"If such buildings are hindering in most important locality where the modern planner want's to build there a School or a Hospital then I think there is no harm in destroying this building so as make the future generation or to help the needed one using this land"

Quote:

Originally posted by Neha123
In conclusion, the best possible use of old buildings and monuments should be done so as to maintain and preserve the rich old cultural heritage keeping in pace with the contemporary culture.

Ok now regards to the essay this is what I have to say. You have ideas, many are similar to the first essay but I don't think anyone would have had any other ideas. Grammatical mistakes are high and this can cost you heavily by bringing your score down. Keep the language simple, no one is trying to test your vocabulary here, they are looking at how good you are at expressing your ideas and your scentence structure.

nsoonhui · 05-12-2003, 12:44 AM

26
Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

<font color="limegreen">No one will dispute the importance of historical buildings, and no one will dispute the necessity to conserve those buildings. However controversy arises when the old buildings stand on the way of development. Should we give ways for modern development or should the preservation of historic buildings take precedence over modern development? I shall argue that preservation of old historical building is more important.

Historical building is our heritage. It is a testimony of our society's evolution and serves as important historical lesson. History is an essential ingredient in unifying the whole nation because it conveys the struggle our ancestors had gone through. For example, in Malaysia, we have "Stadium Merdeka" to reminds us of how our progenitors won independence from other countries. Suppose that if one day "Stadium Merdeka" has to give way to say, building roads, then Malaysia has not only lost itself of one valuable historical heritage, but also, we are also losing our gratitude ness to our forefathers; our future generations will not be able to appreciate how much our ancestors have done in order to build a free and independent nation.

Some argue that one can shifted old historical building to other places, to give ways to the modern development. They expostulate that by doing this we can have the development and at the same time, preserving antiquities. However, historical building cannot be simply shifted. The reason is the meaning of the building is closely tied with the location of the building. Take for example, AFOMOSA. AFOMOSA was built initially as a castle in a strategic seaside. It served the function of defending the whole Malacca city from intruders and occupying powers. If AFOMOSA was shifted to other seaside, then the historical meaning of the building is lost instantly, because other seaside was not a strategic place to land troops. It is clear that one can't move AFOMOSA to other places, for doing so our future generation will not know what is the purpose of AFOMOSA. On the other hand, modern developers always have non-historical place as options, why do they insist on using historical sites?

It is clear that historical building is very important, much more important than modern development. Modern planners can always use other grounds for development and thus they should not meddle with historical sites. Thus government should pass law to protect our historical heritage from the greedy businessman.</font id="limegreen">

delta4s · 10-09-2003, 04:20 PM

**Here is one of mine that got a 6 by a local instructor. Thought I'd share it here **

A nation's history is best represented by the monuments it has preserved from the past. All countries showcase their past by displaying and promoting monuments which highlight their achievements. At the same time, the growing population and developing economy exert their pressure on urban space which is increasingly hard to come by. This calls for a certain compromise between the preservation of ancient monuments and the reclamation of much needed space from them.

Preservation of historical structures is very important for a nation. Historical structures represent the growth of a nation and serve as reminders of the nations move towards civilization and of its attainment in ancient times. The Pyramids in Egypt show us the remarkably advanced architectural skills of the ancient Egyptians. Certain monuments may showcase the friendship between nations, as The Statue of Liberty does between the United States and France. Others may be huge and awe-provoking structures of defense, such as the Great Wall of China. None of the structures mentioned above can be even considered for destruction. They are very valuable for all of humanity, representatives of bygone glory.

Ancient monuments have their economic value as well. One of the main reasons for tourists coming to India is to see the Taj Mahal in Agra, the Red Fort in Delhi, the Pink Palace and Jantar Mantar of Jaipur, the Charminar in Hyderabad. The Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy, the Eiffel tower in France, the Angkor Vat temple in Cambodia all attract tourists from around the world and bring in valuable foreign exchange and are an asset to the economy of their respective country.

Some monuments can be made useful by converting them to hotels or hospitals. The Falaknuma palace in Hyderabad has been converted to a five star hotel. This way, modern urban requirements are met and the historical building is preserved.

It is true that certain ancient structures may be too decrepit to maintain. They can be a burden on the exchequer while providing no meaningful returns. The structure itself might have no historical value and may be only of emotional value to a few. In such cases the structure may be demolished and the space liberated can be reclaimed for modern purposes. At the same time, care must be taken in evaluating the value of such structures; once demolished, they can never come back again. Here the archaeological department has to play a crucial role in weighing the pros and cons of demolishing the structure. Each structure must be carefully evaluated before the decision for demolition is taken. In this regard Germany can be taken as an example. Even while eager to erase their horrible past under Nazi rule, and to build a thriving new economy, the Germans still managed to preserve a few concentration camps, such as the Weimar camp to serve as a lesson for posterity to make sure that such things never happen again.

Historical structures represent the past, whether glorious or hideous. They serve as reminders of bygone eras. Our duty is to preserve them for future generations so that they may learn from past failings and successes. The demolition of well known historical monuments may in itself be a historical blunder.

sonali · 10-17-2003, 04:09 PM

26 "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."

Historic buildings are prestige of the country. Those buildings depict the history, culture, architecture and traditions of our country during past time. So we should try to preserve these assets of our country. However, under some circumstances preference should be given to community’s contemporary needs rather than building’s historic and aesthetic value. Thus, in my view, which one has to given precedence should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Preservation of historic buildings has an economical value. People are eager to know about events in history. Thus historic buildings can be source of income by making them as tourist place. Eventually, it would be easy for government to maintain and renovate older buildings from gathered funds. However, some buildings are attractive because of craftsmanship and materials employed in their construction, which might be rare today and thus practically impossible to replicate. Thus, such buildings can be used for accommodating current needs of the people.

Historic buildings have some memories residing in it. For example, Taj Mahal of India is undoubtedly the most spectacular building of the world. It is renowned for its architectural magnificence and aesthetic beauty. As a tomb it has no match upon earth. Who would be not in favor of saving such historic building? On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era or if the building’s history is not remarkable one, then the new structure demanding contemporary needs should take preference over the historic value of the building.

Nevertheless, in determining whether to raze older buildings planners should consider the society’s current needs. For example, if hospital is needed for serving the health needs of people then preference should be given for constructing hospital rather than preserving old building. In many places, many old forts or buildings are now converted into schools or hospitals. In short, planners should make such decisions by comparing community’s practical needs against the buildings historic and aesthetic value.

In sum, whether to demolish an older building in order to satisfy contemporary needs should be decided very carefully. Moreover, by considering the aesthetic and historic value of the building planners should make the decision because, one should always keep in mind ‘History Never Repeats’.

matek · 10-26-2003, 05:26 AM

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served.
--------------------
Conflicts between the past and the contemporary have been always hot topics. People keep thinking about whether keeping the record of the society's past or leaving it and being concerned with the contemporary purposes. The answer seems to be not simple. Whether modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buldings? In my opinion before giving a definite answer we should have more analysis.

Many experiences have shown that there is no simple Yes-No answer to this kind of problems. For a society the past is not less important than the contemporary. The past gives people a whole picture of the society, from which people can do things better in the future. But besides the contemporary problems should be solved, and when they are solved, people will get many benefits.

For that reason, being forced to choose between the past value and the contemporary benefit, we have to evaluate them more carefully. If the the past is very valuable, destroying it means loosing a big treasure, we should keep it. Take an example, in my town last year, when people wanted to build a supermarket in a place down town, they discovered a palace in the ground. The palace was built in 17th century. The palace was so valuable so they decided not to build the supermarket, but to develope the place to a museum.

But not every situation is like my example above. In many cases, the contemporary purpose is much more necessary than the reservation of the past. People then should choose to the morden development.

Besides that, a third solution is sometimes suggested: to move either the old buliding or the modern plan to another place. With the development of the technology this suggestion sometimes can be solved, and it is sometimes the best solution, becouse we can both develope for the future and reserve the past's value.

Returning to our situation, the author claimed that old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, if the situation is that modern purposes are more benifitial than the old bulding, I firstly recommend the third solution, to move one of them to another place. In the case that cannot be solved. The modern development should be given the precedence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-22-2002, 11:32 AM	#1 (permalink)
sow1225 Eager! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 88	Hi guys, Please look into this one...I targetted for 40 mins...but as always I am exceeding time....I am still working on that.... Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served Buildings in a society does represent the past life a society. Both, past and future are equally important to a society. Whether modern development should be given preference over historic buildings depends on the situation and purpose of contemporary needs. However, if a situation arise that historic buildings are standing as hindrance to the modern development, It would be more beneficial if the preference is given to the modern buildings over historic buildings. Historic buildings represent the societies past life culture, traditions that’s been preserved and maintained since ages. Crucial part of the society is to pass on the traditions and culture that has been preserved. Historic buildings are one of the elements of the society that can be used for this purpose. But, buildings may lack contemporary facilities that may be necessary for everyday life. Lets look into an example. India was once very rich with kings and kingdoms. There are so many great forts left behind by those kings. Some are preserved as historic buildings. Some others are changed into hotels and resorts for government tourist funds. If historic buildings are used to serve contemporary needs, it would serve both purposes. It not only satisfies the contemporary needs, but also preserves the history. That way, buildings do not get destroyed and history can be remembered in every way. Some might argue that renovating the historic buildings to contemporary needs may loose its authenticity. Its good to preserve history but, one has to think and move on with the future. Living without modern development and everyday needs may not make give a meaning to the contemporary life. On the other hand, construction of modern buildings by destroying every historic building on purpose is not good. Preserving historic life and promoting them using those buildings involves everyone in the society. For instance, some city builders try to replace some historic buildings for their own selfish reasons. Such purposes should be thoroughly evaluated. In sum, I concur that preference between modern development and historic buildings depends on the situation. If historic buildings stand as a hurdle to the modern development, it would be more beneficial if the preference is given to modern buildings.

11-24-2002, 11:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
demolala Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Nigeria Posts: 9	Please read this and let me know where i stand, my exam is thursday. Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served It is true that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past and as such it should be preserved but one would find out that not all the historic buildings are worth preserving. I will only subscribe to the idea of preserving only those buildings that have a significant mark in our society's history such as the King's Palace, colonial masters' building, missionaries' houses just to mention few. For instance, in Nigeria the house where Mary Slessor lived was preserved because she played a significant role of stopping the killing of twins in my country. Also there is a rock under which people of a certain comunity found refuge each time a superior community comes to invade their community, such rock was preserved as a tourist attraction and people of that community go there once in a year as a mark of remembrance. I believed that it is only structures like these that should be preserved. In the absence of those kinds of structures mentioned above, I am of the oppinion that modern planners should make better use of the old building for modern purposes. Moreover, most historic building are devoid of the necessary facilities required in our modern life, they are therefore neglected to dilapidate thereby constituting environmental nuissance to the community. If there are modern schools, hospitals, recreational centres, industries to be built and we refused to build it because we are trying to preserve the old buildings, it is going to be at the detriment of our kids that we are trying to keep those historic buildings for. Many people would like to argue that Historic buildings could be rennovated to serve thesame modern purposes. Yes, old buildings could be given a facelift inorder to meet up with the modern day an age buildings but by so doing, the building will loose it's originality and the purpose of preserving it would have been defeated. In sum,I acknowledge that historical buildings should be preserved but we should be selective about it, so that it does not distrupt the modern development of our society which aims at meeting our comtemporary needs.

11-28-2002, 05:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
Neha123 Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sri Lanka Posts: 8	HI Sri, Following are my points on the same topic. Please let me know where I stand. "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served." Building does represent the societie's past. But in this era of contemporary world, both past and future are equally important. And with this view, I would like to state that we should preserve and respect the old culture which can be seen in this old building so also plan accordingly to make this building renovated in pace with the modern development. Past has been of great influnce for the contemporary generation. It is the old building and monuments that are the only remnant of this past history. It is this buildings and monuments which reflects past history's culture, tradition and the old beliefs. If this buildings are demolished just for the sake of new development then it would be a harsh step in not preserving the old culture and tradition as no one would like to destroy thier old culture and traditions. Most of this monuments and buildings are standing since eon of time. Naturally, most of them are in dilapilated state. Also this building does not have the modern amenities of todays buildings. Instead, if this buildings are renovated with the modern means than it will solve both the purpose that is maintaing the old culture and tradition keeping in pace with the contemporary culture. And the same is also in progress in most of the world famous monuments and buildings. For example, many forts and old buildings in India are converted to luxirious hotels by the Indian government. Those building which are not so big are converted into either Museum or as a small restaurant. However, there are certain buildings or monuments which are in such a bad conditions that they can hardly be renovated. If such buildings are hindering in most important locality where the modern planner want's to build there a School or a Hospital then I think there is no harm in destroying this building so as make the future generation or to help the needed one using this land. Offcourse, before destroying such building all the circumstances should be taken into consideration. In conclusion, the best possible use of old buildings and monuments should be done so as to maintain and preserve the rich old cultural heritage keeping in pace with the contemporary culture.

05-12-2003, 12:44 AM	#7 (permalink)
nsoonhui Eager! Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 74	26 Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served <font color="limegreen">No one will dispute the importance of historical buildings, and no one will dispute the necessity to conserve those buildings. However controversy arises when the old buildings stand on the way of development. Should we give ways for modern development or should the preservation of historic buildings take precedence over modern development? I shall argue that preservation of old historical building is more important. Historical building is our heritage. It is a testimony of our society's evolution and serves as important historical lesson. History is an essential ingredient in unifying the whole nation because it conveys the struggle our ancestors had gone through. For example, in Malaysia, we have "Stadium Merdeka" to reminds us of how our progenitors won independence from other countries. Suppose that if one day "Stadium Merdeka" has to give way to say, building roads, then Malaysia has not only lost itself of one valuable historical heritage, but also, we are also losing our gratitude ness to our forefathers; our future generations will not be able to appreciate how much our ancestors have done in order to build a free and independent nation. Some argue that one can shifted old historical building to other places, to give ways to the modern development. They expostulate that by doing this we can have the development and at the same time, preserving antiquities. However, historical building cannot be simply shifted. The reason is the meaning of the building is closely tied with the location of the building. Take for example, AFOMOSA. AFOMOSA was built initially as a castle in a strategic seaside. It served the function of defending the whole Malacca city from intruders and occupying powers. If AFOMOSA was shifted to other seaside, then the historical meaning of the building is lost instantly, because other seaside was not a strategic place to land troops. It is clear that one can't move AFOMOSA to other places, for doing so our future generation will not know what is the purpose of AFOMOSA. On the other hand, modern developers always have non-historical place as options, why do they insist on using historical sites? It is clear that historical building is very important, much more important than modern development. Modern planners can always use other grounds for development and thus they should not meddle with historical sites. Thus government should pass law to protect our historical heritage from the greedy businessman.</font id="limegreen">

10-09-2003, 04:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
delta4s Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: India Posts: 12	Here is one of mine that got a 6 by a local instructor. Thought I'd share it here A nation's history is best represented by the monuments it has preserved from the past. All countries showcase their past by displaying and promoting monuments which highlight their achievements. At the same time, the growing population and developing economy exert their pressure on urban space which is increasingly hard to come by. This calls for a certain compromise between the preservation of ancient monuments and the reclamation of much needed space from them. Preservation of historical structures is very important for a nation. Historical structures represent the growth of a nation and serve as reminders of the nations move towards civilization and of its attainment in ancient times. The Pyramids in Egypt show us the remarkably advanced architectural skills of the ancient Egyptians. Certain monuments may showcase the friendship between nations, as The Statue of Liberty does between the United States and France. Others may be huge and awe-provoking structures of defense, such as the Great Wall of China. None of the structures mentioned above can be even considered for destruction. They are very valuable for all of humanity, representatives of bygone glory. Ancient monuments have their economic value as well. One of the main reasons for tourists coming to India is to see the Taj Mahal in Agra, the Red Fort in Delhi, the Pink Palace and Jantar Mantar of Jaipur, the Charminar in Hyderabad. The Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy, the Eiffel tower in France, the Angkor Vat temple in Cambodia all attract tourists from around the world and bring in valuable foreign exchange and are an asset to the economy of their respective country. Some monuments can be made useful by converting them to hotels or hospitals. The Falaknuma palace in Hyderabad has been converted to a five star hotel. This way, modern urban requirements are met and the historical building is preserved. It is true that certain ancient structures may be too decrepit to maintain. They can be a burden on the exchequer while providing no meaningful returns. The structure itself might have no historical value and may be only of emotional value to a few. In such cases the structure may be demolished and the space liberated can be reclaimed for modern purposes. At the same time, care must be taken in evaluating the value of such structures; once demolished, they can never come back again. Here the archaeological department has to play a crucial role in weighing the pros and cons of demolishing the structure. Each structure must be carefully evaluated before the decision for demolition is taken. In this regard Germany can be taken as an example. Even while eager to erase their horrible past under Nazi rule, and to build a thriving new economy, the Germans still managed to preserve a few concentration camps, such as the Weimar camp to serve as a lesson for posterity to make sure that such things never happen again. Historical structures represent the past, whether glorious or hideous. They serve as reminders of bygone eras. Our duty is to preserve them for future generations so that they may learn from past failings and successes. The demolition of well known historical monuments may in itself be a historical blunder.

10-17-2003, 04:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
sonali Within my grasp! Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 132	26 "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served." Historic buildings are prestige of the country. Those buildings depict the history, culture, architecture and traditions of our country during past time. So we should try to preserve these assets of our country. However, under some circumstances preference should be given to community’s contemporary needs rather than building’s historic and aesthetic value. Thus, in my view, which one has to given precedence should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Preservation of historic buildings has an economical value. People are eager to know about events in history. Thus historic buildings can be source of income by making them as tourist place. Eventually, it would be easy for government to maintain and renovate older buildings from gathered funds. However, some buildings are attractive because of craftsmanship and materials employed in their construction, which might be rare today and thus practically impossible to replicate. Thus, such buildings can be used for accommodating current needs of the people. Historic buildings have some memories residing in it. For example, Taj Mahal of India is undoubtedly the most spectacular building of the world. It is renowned for its architectural magnificence and aesthetic beauty. As a tomb it has no match upon earth. Who would be not in favor of saving such historic building? On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era or if the building’s history is not remarkable one, then the new structure demanding contemporary needs should take preference over the historic value of the building. Nevertheless, in determining whether to raze older buildings planners should consider the society’s current needs. For example, if hospital is needed for serving the health needs of people then preference should be given for constructing hospital rather than preserving old building. In many places, many old forts or buildings are now converted into schools or hospitals. In short, planners should make such decisions by comparing community’s practical needs against the buildings historic and aesthetic value. In sum, whether to demolish an older building in order to satisfy contemporary needs should be decided very carefully. Moreover, by considering the aesthetic and historic value of the building planners should make the decision because, one should always keep in mind ‘History Never Repeats’.

10-26-2003, 05:26 AM	#10 (permalink)
matek Eager! Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 41	Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served. -------------------- Conflicts between the past and the contemporary have been always hot topics. People keep thinking about whether keeping the record of the society's past or leaving it and being concerned with the contemporary purposes. The answer seems to be not simple. Whether modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buldings? In my opinion before giving a definite answer we should have more analysis. Many experiences have shown that there is no simple Yes-No answer to this kind of problems. For a society the past is not less important than the contemporary. The past gives people a whole picture of the society, from which people can do things better in the future. But besides the contemporary problems should be solved, and when they are solved, people will get many benefits. For that reason, being forced to choose between the past value and the contemporary benefit, we have to evaluate them more carefully. If the the past is very valuable, destroying it means loosing a big treasure, we should keep it. Take an example, in my town last year, when people wanted to build a supermarket in a place down town, they discovered a palace in the ground. The palace was built in 17th century. The palace was so valuable so they decided not to build the supermarket, but to develope the place to a museum. But not every situation is like my example above. In many cases, the contemporary purpose is much more necessary than the reservation of the past. People then should choose to the morden development. Besides that, a third solution is sometimes suggested: to move either the old buliding or the modern plan to another place. With the development of the technology this suggestion sometimes can be solved, and it is sometimes the best solution, becouse we can both develope for the future and reserve the past's value. Returning to our situation, the author claimed that old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, if the situation is that modern purposes are more benifitial than the old bulding, I firstly recommend the third solution, to move one of them to another place. In the case that cannot be solved. The modern development should be given the precedence.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests