Many old buildings protected by low are part of a nation's history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
A lot of historical buildings are retained by people because of their national value. Although some people tend to think that old houses are weak ones, having nothing useful, that should be demolished, I am inclined to believe that aged buildings should be protected and saved.
At first, old places always attract many tourists from all over the world and this brings a major part of income to city budget. Moreover, cities, in whose were combined historical places and modern buildings, are unique and contrast as well. This can be seen by looking at Paris, Budapest, London cities and many others. Furthermore, these houses give insight into history for everybody, who visited them.
Secondly, longstanding buildings are our heritage and tangible past, so they need maintaining. In most countries, age-old buildings are considered to be inherent part of the culture self-identifying. Besides, I suppose, even eyesore buildings should be preserved, because you will never know what you destroy, demolishing old building that could turn out to have historical significance. Ones having ruined it, you would lost it forever.
Finally, old time architecture could inspire people to use something from this in modern designing of buildings, which could lead to inimitable, excellent city style that again would call a lot of attention. Meanwhile, pubs, libraries, cafes and other used to rent old buildings on considerations of better quality of constructions and interiors that are more suitable.
To conclude, I want to say that history is equal to progress and it is highly important to retain old building because they are part of our history and of our past. Moreover, old place could bring something useful to our future, for example, filling out city budget through development of tourism.
Please, help me understand level of my writing.
-Some people think they should be knocked down . destroyed. Phrasal verbs should not be used in formal writings.
_Many old buildings protected by low are part of a nation's history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?A lot of historical buildings are retained by people because of their national value. Although some people tend to think that old houses are weak ones, having nothing useful, that should be demolished, I am inclined to believe that aged buildings should be protected and saved.
_ Moreover, cities, in whose were combined historical places and modern buildings, are unique and contrast as well. "whose" is used for people, change it to "which". Moreover, cities, in which historical places and modern buildings were built.
Moreover, cities, in whose were combined historical places and modern buildings, are unique and contrast as well. This can be seen by looking at Paris, Budapest, London cities and many others. You can combine two sentences like that: Moreover, cities such as Paris, Budapest and London, in which historical places and modern buildings were built,....
This is my opinion. Hope this help!
I think you have written very well on the question of old houses and their uses. However, a couple of comments seem necessary.
You say:
finally...
But really you should say "thirdly". You don't want to show lack of form on the concluding paragraph. You already have a conclusion when you say:
To conclude...
Also you need to introduce your main ideas in the first paragraph. Then you can logically include your three topics. Then you can wrap up with a summary of those same points. You could talk about the down side of old houses if you wanted another paragraph for contrast. That is sometimes they attract vagrants or become fire hazards.
Good start!
ef_carol
