2. 外语
  3. Do we need cities any more I don’t want to live in a city. Perhaps we divide naturally into two types: those for whom cities

Do we need cities any more I don’t want to live in a city. Perhaps we divide naturally into two types: those for whom cities

admin2012-10-30  48
问题                           Do we need cities any more
    I don’t want to live in a city. Perhaps we divide naturally into two types: those for whom cities are vibrant and exciting, a focus for human activity; and those for whom they are dirty, noisy and dangerous. It may be unfashionable, but I’m in the latter camp. I do not believe that we are a species whose behavior improves in overcrowded conditions.
    A new study proposes a significant increase in the capacity of towns and cities through a combination of increased housing densities, lower on-plot provision for cars and more on-street parking, and the re-use of marginal open space that is empty of any amenity value. The benefit of this approach is to reduce the loss of green fields and to help "move towards more sustainable patterns of development".
    This study suggests that it would be possible to achieve a 25% increase in density in a typical provincial city without changing the traditional street scene, although it would be necessary to reduce the size of the houses and substitute parking spaces for garages. Therefore, the cost of this approach is to have more people living in smaller homes at higher densities, along streets that are lined with parked cars. Can we really accept the notion that space within dwellings may be reduced even further? In times when, we are told, living standards are rising in real terms, is it realistic to seek to reduce personal space standards?
    The streets of many inner suburbs are already lined with cars on both sides, reducing movement to a single lane. Increasing densities means accepting urban streets that are designed as linear car parks, bounded by even smaller living units and modified only by occasional trees growing from the tarmac. Would the benefits of higher density be worth the disadvantages of increasing on-street parking? Can we achieve a satisfactory visual environment from such raw materials? Higher urban densities may be communally good for us, but they will fail to meet the desire of many prospective home owners.
    Those without economic choice can be directed to live in this way, but if we are to continue to rely on the private sector to produce this urban housing, it will need to appeal to the private developers’ customers. Who will choose to live in these high-density developments of small dwellings, with minimal open space and a chance to park on the highway if you are lucky enough to find a space? The main consumers will be single people, couples without children, and perhaps some "empty nesters". These are people who can choose to spend much of their time outside their home, making the most of those urban cultural opportunities or getting away at weekends to a country cottage of sporting activities.
    The combination of a young family and a mortgage restricts the mobility and spending power of many couples. Most people with a family will try to avoid bringing up their children in an overcrowded flat or house. Space for independent activity is important in developing the individual and in maintaining family balance. The garden is the secure place where the children can work off excess energy.
    There is danger that planners may take a dispassionate, logical view of how we should live, and seek to force society into that shape. A few years ago a European Commission study provided a good example of this. It took the view, quite sensibly, that housing should not be under-occupied because this is a waste of resources. Therefore, it would be much better if the many thousands of old ladies who live alone in large detached houses would move into small urban flats, thus releasing the large houses for families. What the study failed to recognize was that many of those old ladies prefer to continue to live in their family home with their familiar surroundings and, most importantly,  with their memories. What is good for us is not necessarily what we want.
    The urban housing option may be technically sustainable, but individually unacceptable. There still seems to be a perception among planners that new housing investment can be forced into those areas that planners want to see developed, without proper consideration of where the prospective purchasers want to live. There is a fatal flaw in this premise. Housing developers run businesses. They are not unavoidably committed to building houses and they are not obliged to invest their resources in housing development. Unless there is a reasonable prospect of a profit on the capital at risk in a housing project, they may simply choose to invest in some other activity.
What is good for us is usually what we want.
选项 A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案B
解析 倒数第二段最后一句，两者的副词修饰语不一致，原文用not necessarily，意为“不一定”，而题目用usually，意为“通常”，由此可知两者内容也不一致。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/R757777K
0

大学英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)