Architecture The modern philosophy of "out with the old, in with the new" has been used and abused for years. Often times, it has more to do with making a profit rather than a legitimate need for something new. Across the United States, beautiful, historic architecture is frequently destroyed to make way for malls, high-rise apartment buildings, grandiose homes, and other structures. Unfortunately, little is done to protect our history. Over the past several years, it has become increasingly common for big-name developers to tear down Victorian, Craftsman, and Colonial buildings. This destruction is often performed with the thought that it is the property that holds the true value, not the structure that sits on it. Likewise, homeowners have begun to value their property's location over the house they have spent many years living in. Little regard is given to the painstaking details and craftsmanship that went into these buildings, nor the innate beauty of hand-carved woodwork and ornamentation. "Out with the old, in with the new" has resulted in people no longer appreciating the history and artistic integrity of our country's oldest buildings and failing to realize that once "the new" is brought in, "the old" is lost to us forever. It is bad enough that developers and private citizens are blind to the beauty around them; what is worse is that local governments refuse to step in and prevent this destruction. Cities and towns need to stand up to large developers that flash money around in the name of progress. Rather than allowing developers to tear down old buildings simply to put up new ones, local governments could enact ordinances to preserve their area's architecture. If an old building is unusable or unsafe as it is, the structure could be restored instead of demolished; not only would this save one-of-a-kind architecture, it is also an extremely environmentally-conscience concept because less building material is used and wasted. In addition, local governments could prevent homeowners from tearing down their homes if the buildings are of a historic nature. Town officials could easily draw up legislation to preserve all buildings erected before a certain date, which would effectively prevent anyone from destroying historic architecture or buying property with express intent of rebuilding on the land. If local governments take more of an interest in their towns' character and history right now, our culture will be preserved for many generations to come. 7 Select the correct answer. Read the sentence from the passage. Rather than allowing developers to tear down old buildings simply to put up new ones, local governments could enact ordinances to preserve their area's architecture. How does this sentence develop the claim in the passage? A. It concludes the writer's discussion of modern architecture. B. It summarizes the writer's attitude toward government involvement in architecture. C. It begins to describe the problems the writer wants to highlight. D. It begins to introduce solutions to the problems the writer raises.
Architecture
The modern philosophy of "out with the old, in with the new" has been used and abused for years. Often times, it has more to do with making a profit rather than a legitimate need for something new. Across the United States, beautiful, historic architecture is frequently destroyed to make way for malls, high-rise apartment buildings, grandiose homes, and other structures. Unfortunately, little is done to protect our history.
Over the past several years, it has become increasingly common for big-name developers to tear down Victorian, Craftsman, and Colonial buildings. This destruction is often performed with the thought that it is the property that holds the true value, not the structure that sits on it. Likewise, homeowners have begun to value their property's location over the house they have spent many years living in. Little regard is given to the painstaking details and craftsmanship that went into these buildings, nor the innate beauty of hand-carved woodwork and ornamentation. "Out with the old, in with the new" has resulted in people no longer appreciating the history and artistic integrity of our country's oldest buildings and failing to realize that once "the new" is brought in, "the old" is lost to us forever.
It is bad enough that developers and private citizens are blind to the beauty around them; what is worse is that local governments refuse to step in and prevent this destruction. Cities and towns need to stand up to large developers that flash money around in the name of progress. Rather than allowing developers to tear down old buildings simply to put up new ones, local governments could enact ordinances to preserve their area's architecture. If an old building is unusable or unsafe as it is, the structure could be restored instead of demolished; not only would this save one-of-a-kind architecture, it is also an extremely environmentally-conscience concept because less building material is used and wasted.
In addition, local governments could prevent homeowners from tearing down their homes if the buildings are of a historic nature. Town officials could easily draw up legislation to preserve all buildings erected before a certain date, which would effectively prevent anyone from destroying historic architecture or buying property with express intent of rebuilding on the land.
If local governments take more of an interest in their towns' character and history right now, our culture will be preserved for many generations to come.
Read the sentence from the passage.
Rather than allowing developers to tear down old buildings simply to put up new ones, local governments could enact ordinances to preserve their area's architecture.
How does this sentence develop the claim in the passage?
AI-generated content may present inaccurate or offensive content that does not represent bartleby’s views.
Unlock instant AI solutions
Tap the button
to generate a solution
