Hi all, this is my first post, any comment would be appreciated. I am struggling with having a good conclusion, so any suggestion would be welcomed. Thank you in advance.
Topic: Urban development - we often find ourselves confronted with the old building problem. Some think we should pull down the old houses and building in the way. However, others argue that it is a very rash decision to tear them down without full consideration.
Old buildings are now becoming a source of concern to many people due to the safety reasons. In fact, some people suggest that old houses and buildings have lived up to their lives and should be taken down. On another hand, there are people who believe in the intrinsic value of old houses and buildings, thus they must be kept intact. In my opinion, I support the latter view with few clarifications to be addressed.
First of all, it is undeniable that new urban facilities such as schools, hospitals or markets are the utmost needs when population is increasing day by day. However, old houses and buildings have historical significance. For example, houses which age two or three centuries could be the only evidence left to depict our predecessors' way of lives and their stories. In addition, the studying of old structures' architecture could enrich human knowledge with experiences passed down by our ancestors. Taking the Pyramid built by Egyptian for example, the construction of the Pyramid is still mysterious to mankind, because it requires the understanding of complex mathematic and geographic theories. Therefore, there are values in old houses or building which should be preserved.
On the other hand, there is in fact argument indicating that old houses should not exist. The crucial explanation for this is that many old houses and buildings have been too obsolete to serve people safely. For this point, I do agree with it, yet the government may also consider other options such as reallocating people. Instead of demolishing old houses, the government could consider taking advantage of building essential structures or shelters in rural areas, as this could also help to divert the population in major cities to regional towns.
In conclusion, the problem with old houses and building could be alleviated without destroying the value of old structures. They should be preserved for historical and education purposes.
Old buildings are now becoming a source of concern to many people due to the safety reasons. In fact,Therefore, some people suggest that old houses and buildings have lived up to their lives and should be taken downMy suggestion:demolished . On another handHowever , there are people who believe in the intrinsic value of old houses and buildings, thus they must be kept intact. In my opinion, I support the latter view with a few clarifications to be addressed.
Old buildings are now becoming a source of concern to many people due to the safety reasons.
------- this is a good sentence and you have nicely presented it, but my only issue is that safety is not the only reason why old buildings being removed. Development of modern urban cities, especially the road and other infrastructural systems demands the removal of some buildings.should be takendownaway .
On another hand, there are people who believe in the intrinsic value of old houses and buildings, thus they must be kept intact.
----- well written :)On another hand, there are people who believe in the intrinsic value of old houses and buildings, thus they must be kept intact.
while the first half says opinion of some people, the latter says a fact. so it seems there is no relation of both, and "thus" is inappropriate here. I would suggest:
there are people who believe that old houses and buildings have their intrinsic value and that they should thus be kept intact.
