is important for all towns and cities to have large public spaces， such as squares and parks. Is this a positive or negative development？
＂claustrophobia＂ is recently a word that is no stranger to the people living in big cities： which describes a newly found psychological disease. People who have “claustrophobia？ usually find it depressed and unbearable to stay in a confined place for a long time due to different reasons. However the problem is that most of us do have to stay indoors（office， workshop， classroom， etc.） for the most of the time of the life. Therefore： it is of great necessity to welcome larger public places like parks and squares where the citizens can get close to the nature and get rid of the pressure in working or studying time.
The large public spaces： first and foremost： provide a regular way for the local people to do things of all kinds more than their work. Sporting like jogging or playing badminton， which cannot usually be realized indoor： v.-ill certainly become one of the best choice for the young and old in spare time to get refreshed after a whole day heavy workload. Additionally， parks、with plants are also somewhere for people to have a bite to eat during the break while they are busy probably meeting someone interesting. Last but not the least， establishing as many as those large public places： the image of the city is will be laddered up for the garden is no doubt to be carefully attended. It should be always cherished for the city people to have more green plants.
However， it does not mean those places are without any disadvantages. A recent case centered on the riot instigated by a gang of terrorists in the commercial street of Changsha： leading to several deaths. It is always those densely populated public places that become the target of terrorists.
In conclusion， it is a great policy for governments to set up as many large public places as possible.
ic museums and art galleries are not needed because people could see historical objects and works by using computers. To what extent do you agree or disagree？
It is simply absurd to assert that with historical objects and works of art being able to be seen through a computer， public museums and art galleries will no longer be needed.
First of all， computers can never replace real public museums and art galleries. No matter how real and vivid computer images are， they are only images， not the historical objects and works of art that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. For those who claim museums and galleries are no longer needed because they can see all they want to on a computer screen， I’d like to suggest that they marry a wife or husband in the computer rather than in real life！
In the second place， visiting real museums and art galleries is a rewarding experience in many respects. For one thing， it is a good exercise. While we are making the trip to a museum or art gallery and then strolling about on site， we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. For another thing， we can feast our eyes on all kinds of things there and experience the wonder， beauty and exquisite workmanship with our own eyes in an active way instead of in a passive manner by looking at what are being displayed to us by others on the screen. For yet another thing， we protect our eyesight by moving away from the computer screen and see the real objects on site.
It is true that computers have brought great conveniences to our life. At certain times， especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit museums and art galleries in person， we can get a rough picture of what are on display on site. However， what we see from a computer screen is， after all， not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own eyes on site.
In conclusion， computers will never be able to replace real public museums and art galleries. Therefore， it is ridiculous to say that one does not need to go to museums and art galleries as historical objects and works of art can be appreciated on a computer screen.