Scenario 3

Without further ado, all the distressed students must order homework online now from our writing assistance company. Assignment Writing Uk

Yes I agree. Housing problem really affects Hong Kong citizens. And this proposal can ease the problem and at the same time preserve the old building in VR. Although this may not be the best way to preserve the memory, for better living quality, scarification is needed.

I agree with the proposal to a certain extent. A lot of the historical structures can be saved in memory. The importance of saving our past is understandable but if it hinders the future to have a roof over their head, I will not think twice before moving the structures to a virtual space. At the end of the day, these monumental structures are also a virtual reality, a time that we are trying to recreate. The intention is not to hurt anyone's emotion but ensure everyone's survival.

No. I think VR cannot totally replace real old buildings. It cannot duplicate all features of old buildings such as the sense of space, texture and atmosphere. In old buildings, we can touch the walls, breathe the air inside and feel the atmosphere, which cannot be included in VR. Besides, the value of historical buildings is that they experienced the past. The history and collective memory give heritage a special meaning, which cannot be replicated by just replicating the structure and appearance of old buildings in VR.

The housing problem is important but this does not mean we can give up other things for it. Old buildings can also contribute to society. Visiting old buildings can let people immerse themselves in the past and forget the busy lives temporarily. It is good for our mental health. And the government can develop tourism and makes old buildings become new tourist attractions. There are many ways to increase housing supply such as reclamation and developing brownfield sites. Therefore, it is unwise to demolish old buildings to make more space for residential units.

I don't agree to such proposal as the physical sites of these structures have their own unique and important significance, which will disappear if these physical sites are replaced with the virtual sites. For example, in the architectural aspect, the old buildings are usually built in old architectural style with old building components and materials, which are precious and rarely being seen in newly built structures in Hong Kong. As the new buildings may usually have uniform and plain design for optimizing resources, these old style building can create diversity in city landscape. Also, in the social aspect, these old buildings may contain collective memories of the residents living in the community. As the old buildings usually symbolize their own districts, they may always be treated as the old and familiar places for residents to have social activities. If these old buildings are replaced by VR, the social significance for these human-interest buildings may disappear and cannot be reformed by VR. Actually, if there is proper renovation and city planning, the old buildings can also be used in other purposes different from the original one, or even served as residential units. This may be a better option to create a win-win situation.

This is a terrible idea. Although one might argue that in order for society to function optimally is to pursue the scenario specified in the prompt, lest we forget that society is comprised of humans and humans do not purely seek functionality. Humans seek emotional stimulation; and a few examples of how we can derive this is by looking at a beautiful sky, living in a beautiful environment, and attaching significance to certain things such as monuments and historical artifacts and walk past them during the day-to-day.

To go through with the scenario above would be a dehumanization to the architecture that defines the places societies inhabit.

Although virtual one cannot replace the real ones, but this is necessary. Everything has its' value to preserve, but if we preserve all of them, then it will be too crowded. Judging the fact that over 210k population in Hong Kong are living in dangerous subdivided flat, we must give up part of the preservation. The government should make fair decision to choose which important ones to preserve.

No, i do not agree on such proposal. Tangible immovable cultural heritage are a shared bonding and belonging to a community which represent people's history and identity, their bond to the past, present and future. By destroying the physical site and store it in virtual reality archive, it will lost its iconic, commemorative and historical value as it won't be able to represent the city's and people's culture as a physical representation.

I don't agree with the proposal. Since there is limitations of the virtual reality, it is impossible to touch and smell the building in the virtual world. Also, virtual reality failed to recreate every small details of the building such as scratches and bullet holes, which indicated some important historical events. For me, it is better to visit old building in site and touch the old bricks.

I disagree as virtual reality of the scene cannot totally replace the physical being of the building. Every step, collision and even the smell of the ambient environment can "bring us back" and connect with our memory. Moreover, keeping the physical building means we highly value our collective memory, culture and history and that it worths a place in our hearts as well as on our land.

I do not agree with the idea. Visiting monuments and historical building are a way to learn more about the past and learn from it. I personally find the experience of visiting old buildings really fascinating. I feel that visiting these monuments on virtual reality wont give us the same vibe as the actual building and a person would not be able to go through the actual experience. It is like looking at a picture on a Van Gough painting in your mobile phone.

This idea of demolishing all the cultural heritage and monuments is not at all wise. These sites are the only connection to our past and if we destroy them there would be no record of what was hong kong like 50 years ago. As advance as virtual reality might be the aura of a physical site cannot be compared to a virtual one.

I know my point of view might seem disputable, but I strongly believe that such an action would be necessary in the coming future. Looking at the trend of exponential increase in population, accommodation might become a huge problem for everyone. Moreover, visiting these places in the virtual world kind of have the same effect as in the real world.

I dun think it's a good idea as virtual reality is something made by us and controlled by us. However, the old buildings and the collective memory should be different in everybody as they have different concerns. If we use virtual reality to replace it, this may lead to everybody have the same thought and idea. Thus in our society, we would not have different opinions through the same project. This may lead to our society become difficult to make improvement in future.

I don't agree with the proposal. Though VR can recreate the environment of the historical building, it can only produce senses like sight and sound. It can't produce the senses like touch and smell. In the virtual reality world, we can't touch the old brick walls of the historical building nor can breathe in the air that smells like the past. Recreating the historical building in the VR world is nothing compared with the real building. Though we might encounter a dilemma between choosing to demolish the historical building and having no houses for people to live, I think that we should try to find other ways to achieve a win-win situation because if we start accepting using VR to replace the real historical building once, there will be definitely the second,third time and so on. Eventually we might end up having no real historical building and all are left in the VR world.

I think virtual reality can be used to replace the actual buildings if technology is advanced enough to create a reasonably accurate virtual replica of the building. I can safely say that an interactive model of an old building that allows me to freely explore and manipulate its interiors is much more exciting than a physical prop with a 'No touch, 24 hours surveillance cameras installed' sign attached to it.

While it is always admirable to retain the actual structures, we cannot allow human sentimentality to stop us from clearing away old buildings to make space so people can stop living in cage homes while paying exorbitant rents. This is especially true for a place as small and cluttered as Hong Kong.

Furthermore, I must mention that a virtual environment can cut back unnecessary expenses on maintenance and repairs, which could be better spent on other causes that benefit people who are in need.

I believe that in general, virtual reality should be used to help preserve memories of historically significant events, but should not be used to replace them. For example, people could use VR to make visiting these structures more accessible and interactive. However, a physical structure has a more profound impact on people because it proves the existence of an event and therefore should be preserved.

These old buildings are the historical heritage of Hong Kong. If we remove and demolish it, is it still alive or exist? Certainly not. Therefore, there is meaningless for us to move it to VR archive instead of keep it because the actual buildings disappear. Also, to feel a stuff comprehensively, it is important for us to use our 5 senses. However, we can just use our vision to feel the old buildings in the VR. It is obviously that we cannot touch it and actually experience it.

I don't agree. In my opinion, the shifting of the old buildings from real world to virtual world is 'incomplete as VR cannot replicate all the features of those buildings. No matter how real the reconstructed buildings looks in VR, visitors just cannot feel it. We cannot touch it , we cannot stand on it. It is meaningless to visit the buildings in VR as they don't carry any culture, memory and history.

I don't agree. Even those demolished structures can be recreated, something is gone, such as the ambience, this is the thing that vr can't recreated. Although the structures can be saved in the computer, the new generations may never know about the structures. Because they are not motivated to explore the history. If the structures are there, they may motivated by walking pass these old structures. Indeed VR can help us to promote the culturally, historically, memorably deemed significant structures by bringing the visitor 'back to the old days', let them experience the life in the past. But VR can't replace the structures itself.

Although I can understand why the government and developers would want to propose this, I do not agree to it. Some old buildings are full of memories and history, and whilst virtual reality may be able to 'preserve' the visual aspect of the building, it is unable to re-create the touch, smell, hear aspects, which are critical for memory formation. Also, by having old buildings only available in VR, it means that people can no longer have any humanistic interaction at that location, meaning no new memories can be formed.

No, I disagree to the proposal because of the following reasons. First, no matter how advanced the technology is, the virtual object will not be same as the real one. For example, we can actually touch an object in reality but we cannot have the same feel in virtual environment as we cannot feel the texture of the object. Apart from it, since the elderly will be one of the target users to access the virtual reality archive, the difficulty for helping the elderly to access the archive will be high and it is difficult to satisfy their wants. That's why I disagree the proposal

No, I do not agree with it. In order to fully experience the "past" life and story of the heritage, we need to emerged in the environment. The easiest method is to pay a visit to the heritage physically which cannot be replaced by virtual reality. It should be noted that there is no other way to allow visitor to gain such experiences.

In case that the technology of VR is advanced enough to produce such an archive like the real one, I will support the proposal. Because the VR offers us such a platform for us to revisit the historical moment, which is the key value of the real historical site. In addition that the proposal can solve the land problem. Therefore, I agree to the proposal with such a condition.

I don't agree to the proposal. People would never get immersed into a virtual world without "senses". Virtual world literally means that something does not exist in real life. Even a heritage presented in virtual world brings out the details of the heritage, you still feel some sort of emptiness. Take Kowloon walled city as an example, a simulation can only visualise the place instead of presenting the value of Kowloon walled city. I do agree that virtual reality has no problem of maintenance, but if a heritage do not need to be maintained regularly, can the heritage still be considered as " heritage " ? How about the peripheral building and environment related to the heritage?

I don't agree to the proposal. A simulation can try to mimic a heritage as realistic as possible, but they are nowhere near to the actual structure. Each structure is built with concrete materials. By preserving the structures, it allows us viewers to have firsthand experience in feeling the atmosphere inside and outside of them. For example, if we go to the Mei Ho House Heritage Museum, we get a sense of the size, the texture, and the atmosphere of the housing in addition to its appearance. By replacing everything by VR, the historical value of the structures is deteriorated.

No, I don't agree with the proposal. VR gives advantages on space using, but there are things that VR cannot represent. For example, if the Mei Ho House Heritage Museum turns to VR, it is hard for visitors to feel the real size of the housing, they may not know how packed it really is, and so visitors may not understand how important and relevant the heritage is.

Myself personally, I would not approve of the proposal. I believe it is quite important to preserve the great things from the past such as old buildings and structure. Not only does this allow the younger/future generation to experience the life people previously lived, it also acts as a mark of the past and allows people who lived during that time to relive their past and to reminisce on good times. Even as realistic as VR can be, it is only limited to sensations such as sight and sounds, and does not include the underrated aspects like smell, touch and taste. Additionally, qualities such as fresh air, warmth from the sun and the weather are things we take for granted everyday, but these qualities can not be experienced through VR.

No, I do not agree with the proposal. The true value of the building does not only lie within the "data" of the structure but within intangible value of the existence of the building itself. Even if we were to be able to fully duplicate the building to a degree where it is indistinguishable from the original, it would still end up being a duplicate. The fact that the buildings are the "originals" gives it a value that can never be replicated. For example, if we had a perfect copy of Leonardo da Vinci's painting "Mona Lisa", it would still be invaluable when compared to the originals. Furthermore, the circumstances in which the original building were created and cultivated can never be duplicated such as the workers who built them or the wear and tear from the hub of people living there. This "authenticity" of the buildings can't be mimicked by VR or any other technology.

No. A simulation can never represent the real structure. Even if the appearance is vividly simulated, the people cannot experience the touch (e.g. texture of walls) and smell (e.g. old wood) of the place. Moreover, the physical existence of the building is associated with the surrounding community. For example, the Mei Ho House is no longer valuable if it is moved out of the Shek Kip Mei community and relocate to somewhere else, like Central, let alone the internet. Physical visits to the heritages cannot be replaced by VR.

I do not agree to the proposal. Even though people can recreate demolished structures in the VR world, it is something intangible and not 'real' - we cannot feel and touch the structures. Also, using the VR technology, only the physical design of structures can be entirely preserved, while the historical signature of structures cannot. Think about signs of bullet hits on historical buildings. They are valuable only because there are real shootouts happened on-site. If people digitally generated the scars on these structures in VR world, they become meaningless because they are not 'real'. The historical signature is no longer there.

No I don't agree because some heritage contain more meaning than an usual building. Some heritage have functionality and can serve as a land mark, such as the Tsim Sha Tsui Clock Tower. Some heritage represent the history of the city, such as the main building we are having lesson at. Even we can rebuild the apperence of the building, we cannot recapture those meaning by just using VR only