#65. Should historic buildings be preserved or be replaced with modern buildings?
Tall glass towers, whose shiny facades are as cool as their air-conditioned insides, are becoming part of cityscapes from South America to North East Asia. In the process, old buildings are making room for the seemingly unstoppable advancement of modernity. Thus the face of the global city is changing, and city planners are facing the difficult choice of either preserving historic building or replacing them with modern ones. As there are strong arguments for either option, the final decision will depend on a thorough analysis of the specific situation at hand.
It is important to preserve historic buildings and parts of cities because they are part of the cultural heritage that gives identity to a community. Old homes and living quarters are a part of history, and, once destroyed, leveled, and buried under thousands of tons of concrete and steel, they will be lost forever. The constructions erected in their places in too many cases lack any sort of connection to the place. These buildings are anonymous and cultureless edifices that could stand tall in any other part of the world. They lack the charm and character of their historic predecessors.
Yet the construction of new buildings is a sign of modernization. Not only will many people find work in the process of building these structures, but their existence will attract future investments and thus greatly benefit the economy of an area or country. In addition, these new buildings often have lower maintenance costs in comparison to the aged constructions. More importantly, newly development homes and office spaces include the comforts of modern life, e.g. air-conditioning and modern kitchens, are thus comfortable to live in.
Sweeping generalizations are impossible here. A city government should try its best to preserve the old, historic charm of a city and its people. Yet at the same time, they have to look forward and modernize old, rundown buildings in an effort to make their city a more comfortable place to live in and a more successful place to do business. Therefore, a city should think about its general interests and goals and then try to make specific decisions in individual situations.
65. 保护历史建筑还是该用现代化的建筑取而代之？
现代潮流建筑外有高大的玻璃表面，内有空调。从南美到东北亚，这样的建筑正在变为城市一景。在这个过程中，旧建筑正在为似乎不断前进的现代化让出空间。因此，全球的城市面貌都在变化。城市规划者面临着一个两难境地：到底是该保护历史建筑还是该用现代化的建筑取而代之？两种观点都有很多支持者。最后的决定取决于对具体情况的全面分析。
保护历史建筑和城市中的历史遗迹非常重要，因为这些文化遗产使社区变得独特。古老的住宅、庭院是历史的一部分。一旦被破坏、铲平，或者被千万吨的水泥、钢筋埋在地下，它们就永远消失了。大多数情况取而代之的建筑往往与这个地方没有任何关系。这种建筑千篇一律，没有文化气息，可以矗立在世界上任何地方。它们没有古建筑所具有的韵味和特征。
然而，新建筑是现代化的一个标志。不仅是在兴建的时候可以提供大量的就业机会，单是它们的存在就可以吸引投资，为当地和国家的经济做出贡献。此外，与年岁久远的建筑物相比，新建筑物维修费用低。更重要的是，在新家或办公室里你可以享受现代生活的舒适，如空调、现代化的厨房等，所以这样的房子住着也舒服。
这个问题不可能有笼统的结论。政府应尽自己最大努力保护这个城市和人民的历史魅力。同时，他们也需要向前看，把破旧的建筑物现代化，使这个城市更适合居住、做生意。因此，一个城市应考虑自己的兴趣与目标然后再具体问题具体分析，最终做出决定。
- shiny ［ˈʃaini］ adj. 有光泽的，晴朗的
- edifice ［ˈedəfis］ n. 大厦，大建筑物
- facade ［fəˈsa:d］ n. 建筑物的正面，外表
- charm ［tʃa:m］ n. 吸引力，魅力
- cityscape ［ˈsitiˌskeip］ n. 都市风景
- predecessor ［ˈprediˌsesə］n. 前任，前辈
- modernity ［ma:ˈdə:niti］ n. 现代性
- heritage ［ˈheritidʒ］n. 遗产，继承权；传统
- comparison ［kəmˈpærisən］n. 比较，对照
- concrete ［ka:nˈkri:t］ n. 水泥，混凝土
- rundown ［ˈrʌnˌdaun］adj. 破败的，脏且失修的
- erect ［iˈrekt］ v. 竖立，直立
- anonymous ［əˈna:nəməs］ adj. 匿名的