Most people agree that buildings represents a valuable records of any society’s past, but controversy arises when old building stands on ground that modern planner 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 need can be served.
The speaker asserts to give more precedence to the modern development for the practical purpose over the preservation of the historical building. Since the building could represent the valuable historical record of the past of a society, I personally believe that it should be dealt with case-by-case study.
To determine whether to raze the historical building, modern planner should consider the gravity of the utilitarian needs of the society. For instance, if the planner is going to build a hospital to provide health facilities to the fast growing community, it is reasonable to give more precedence for the modern development over the preservation of such building. Or, if the planner is going to build an orphanage, old-aged home, or residents to the homeless people then it is justifiable to give more importance on the modern development of building for practical purpose. On the other hand, if the need is primarily for more office space to a private company, or for the construction of shopping mall and departmental store, then modern development would carry no importance over the preservation of historical building.
Modern planner should also consider the historical importance and the uniqueness of such building before deciding whether to raze the building or not. For instance, the building could be a unique historical building clearly representing the past era such as a palace of a great king, or the oldest museum of the nation, or some important cultural heritage, then such building provides a unique identity to the nation and preserving such historical building would be more important over modern development. On the other hand, if the building is not uniquely remarkable and could not represents some important past events of the era, then preserving such building would carry little sense over the practical necessity of the building for the utilitarian need of the society.
Similarly, the architectural value and the aesthetics of the building also play an important role in deciding whether to raze the building for practical need. For instance, if the building is the unique architectural accomplishment of the era representing the nation uniquely due to its special ancient design and the material used, which is not found in the modern time at any cost, or no modern architecture can construct such uniquely beautiful design and even retrofitting of the building to accommodate the current practical need might weaken the historical value and the aesthetics of the building, then preservation of such building should be given more precedence over modern development. On the other hand, if the building is a normal building with no such unique architectural and aesthetic values, or number of such building exist in the nation then modern development for the practical need should be given more importance.
In conclusion, I believe that the interest of constructing new building for practical purpose in expense of the old historical building should be determined on the basis of its historical importance, architectural and aesthetic value and the gravity of the community’s current utilitarian need.
Aa
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 582, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'represent'
Suggestion: represent
...s not uniquely remarkable and could not represents some important past events of the era, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, similarly, so, then, for instance, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 33.0505617978 27% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2653.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 499.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31663326653 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06485755524 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 215.323595506 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.352705410822 0.4932671777 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 843.3 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 23.0359550562 165% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 106.326337005 60.3974514979 176% => OK
Chars per sentence: 204.076923077 118.986275619 172% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.3846153846 23.4991977007 163% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37522009934 0.243740707755 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187377997402 0.0831039109588 225% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557623619477 0.0758088955206 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.249390489161 0.150359130593 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0532524522854 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.8 14.1392134831 161% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.45 48.8420337079 50% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.3 12.1743820225 159% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.17 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 100.480337079 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.2143820225 153% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.