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.
There are a number of supporters of the fact that as our life constantly changes due to technological developments so should architecture. While it is hard to disagree with the opinion that making people’s lives more comfortable is vital, I believe that alternative ways could be found to preserve historic buildings, on the one hand, and introduce more convenience dictated by changing ambiance, on the other hand.
How often in your life have you had thoughts about how nice it would be if you could see with your own eyes the buildings of some ancient civilizations? How much more do you believe we would be able to know about humans’ history as long as all the architecture ever existed had survived until today? Any thing that is the result of a human creative process carries information about the period when it was created. And most people agree about the importance of history in our lives as it helps us to avoid those mistakes we once made. By destroying historic buildings with the aim of making our existence more comfortable, we are risking of leaving our children without an opportunity to be able to learn history and avoid important mistakes.
It would be rather narrow-minded to assume that there are no other ways how to preserve historic architecture without annihilating it. Modern technologies allow to organize a place of any form and size in such a way that it is could serve multiple of purposes. Take for example Japan, where people may fit a bedroom, a kitchen and a bathroom into a space no larger than twenty squared meters. This is allowed by transforming furniture that is currently in a large supply.
Many city authorities also follow a practice when they develop whole modern areas with skyscrapers while preserving a historic part of the city. For instance, Seoul is divided into two parts by the river. People do business in a new part, Gangnam, but at the same time it does not derive them with the opportunity to enjoy the architecture of the old part. Besides, this old part of the city is a good attraction for tourists and tourism is a crucial source of financial resources. Another example is Shanghai where new modern area, Pudong, was established from the scratch without destroying a historic center. Thus, those people who find it more comfortable to live and work in newly built buildings, may choose to do this in a new area of Shanghai, while those who enjoy the beauty and magnificence of historic buildings prefer to stay in the old part of the city.
To sum up, I strongly believe that any destructive action is reasonable only in cases when other options are exhaustive. However, I see a lot of ways when preservation of historic buildings may be accompanied by improvements in our lives from the perspective of making it more comfortable and consistent with people’s needs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 306, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[2]
Message: Did you mean 'Anything'?
Suggestion: Anything
... ever existed had survived until today? Any thing that is the result of a human creative ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 162, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'organizing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: organizing
...ihilating it. Modern technologies allow to organize a place of any form and size in such a ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 225, Rule ID: IS_SHOULD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
...any form and size in such a way that it is could serve multiple of purposes. Take ...
^^
Line 9, column 331, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd consistent with people's needs.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, may, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2373.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 486.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88271604938 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89273263219 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518518518519 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 760.5 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2712184456 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.894736842 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5789473684 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78947368421 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202745132282 0.243740707755 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0578774174127 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411923432197 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105259268647 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0109505064055 0.0667264976115 16% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.