Q1 - AI Revised
While preservation may be of value to some, it holds us back from creating a more sustainable and accessible community. Preservation of historical buildings in neighborhoods may be educational to communities and schools, but the upkeep and maintenance of those buildings doesn't hold the interest of taxpayers who fund them. In sources A, B, C, and D, we can see that preservation doesn't add value to our lives the same way it did 50 years ago, therefore we should not continue to preserve buildings.
Every building has a story; some more than others. In source B, “Attaching value to buildings exclusively for their architectural, cultural, or historic significance is problematic” (Source B). By only preserving buildings with one of these three criteria, we are blocking ourselves off from creating a more valuable and attractive community. With modern day technology, many historical facts can be quickly found through a google search. And for those looking for pictures of historical objects; those can be found online as well thanks to modern day cameras. In source A, “Urban renewal was seen as a way to clear out the slums…” (Source A). By renovating historic buildings for something more updated, we can predict that the value of homes will go up in economies that may have previously been struggling. The infrequently used historical buildings can also make way for something such as a park or offer space for those struggling with homelessness. Lastly, this reuse of a historical building can help cut back on the monetary costs as compared to tearing down said building. So, while historical buildings may provide value to some, by demolishing and renovating that space, we can offer a more widely used tool for all.
The older things get, the more funding and money they require to maintain. In a 2019 survey about the issues of preservation, 24% felt that the need for funding was the biggest challenge. 21% also felt that having historical buildings wasn't relevant today (Source D). So, nearly half of those surveyed felt as though the upkeep and relevance of historical buildings were not relevant to their lives. In source C, Binyamin felt as though laws for preservation can actually obstruct our lives and cost even more to upkeep than modern day appliances such as solar panels. “ The law says… If the house was built two stories tall, it must remain two stories tall-unless the addition can't be seen from the front.” (Source C). Historic preservation could benefit us by preventing the destruction of memorable history, but it also demolishes something arguably greater about our American heritage; the freedom of speech. By not allowing homeowners to add on to their house for various reasons, these laws prevent them from expressing themselves; something fought for by our founding fathers.
In conclusion, by shifting preservation to an online platform, people from around the globe will have access to artifacts digitally. While preservation of buildings and objects may seem relevant, the idea of doing so is obsolete in a modern day world where technology and factual information can be found with the click of a button.
on the uploaded document.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Feedback on Your Commentary
Let’s dive into the commentary portion of your essay. You’re tackling the question of how preserving or demolishing historical buildings impacts community value and utility. First off, it’s clear that you’re bringing forward multiple sources to back up your stance, which is a solid start. Now, let’s break it down based on the scoring criteria.
For evidence, you’re pulling from specific sources, like Source A and Source B, to support your claims. This is a great move because it shows you’re engaging with the material. However, consider how you can better integrate this evidence into your overall argument. Are there ways you can make the connection between the evidence and your thesis even clearer? What specific examples can you think of that would tighten this link?
Would you like to dive deeper into the commentary section, examining how your analysis supports your arguments?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Let’s dive into your commentary and explore ways to enhance it! First up, let’s consider the evidence you provided. You mentioned, “Attaching value to buildings exclusively for their architectural, cultural, or historic significance is problematic” (Source B). This is a solid piece of evidence, but to strengthen your argument, you might consider adding more context. For example, why is it problematic? What are the implications of this statement? By elaborating on these points, you can provide a clearer picture of how this evidence supports your argument about creating a more valuable community.
Would you like to see more suggestions on improving your commentary?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
First things first, let’s dive into the core ideas of your paragraph. You’re exploring the challenges and complexities of historical preservation, right? It’s intriguing how you weave the financial burdens, public opinion, and even the philosophical clash with American values like freedom of expression. One way to strengthen this paragraph might be to ensure each piece of evidence clearly ties back to your main argument. For instance, when you mention the survey and Binyamin’s perspective, are these examples directly illustrating how preservation laws limit personal freedom or are they more about financial and practical concerns? Clarifying this could help tighten your argument. Do you want to see more suggestions on how to approach this?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
You provide some strong evidence from the 2019 survey and Source C about the financial strain and perceived irrelevance of maintaining historical buildings. Your commentary on these points could be expanded to show how they support your argument. For example, you state that “nearly half of those surveyed felt as though the upkeep and relevance of historical buildings were not relevant to their lives.” How does this sentiment reflect or contradict your thesis about the tension between preservation and personal freedom? Drawing these connections more explicitly can strengthen your commentary. Ready for more insights?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Your commentary is engaging some important ideas! Now, let’s see how you might deepen the connection between your evidence and your argument. One way to improve your commentary is to ensure that you’re clearly explaining how the evidence supports your claims. For example, you could consider exploring the implications of digital access to artifacts. How does this change the way people interact with history? What are the benefits or drawbacks? This could help to strengthen your argument that traditional preservation is becoming obsolete.
Would you like to see more suggestions on how to refine your commentary?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
