Question

谁可以帮我翻译一下下面这三段英文，水平有限，请求援助！

1）We tend to view architecture as permanent, as aspiring to the status of monuments. And that kind of architecture has its place. But so does architecture of a different sort.
2）For most of the first decade of the 2000s, architecture was about the statement building. Whether it was a controversial memorial or an impossibly luxurious condo tower, architecture’s raison d’être was to make a lasting impression. Architecture has always been synonymous with permanence, but should it be?
3）In the last few years, the opposite may be true. Architectural billings are at an all-time low. Major commissions are few and far between. The architecture that’s been making news is fast and fleeting: pop-up shops, food carts, marketplaces, performance spaces. And while many manifestations of the genre have jumped the shark (i.e., a Toys R Us pop-up shop), there is undeniable opportunity in the temporary: it is an apt response to a civilization in flux. And like many prevailing trends — collaborative consumption (a.k.a., “sharing”), community gardens, barter and trade — “temporary” is so retro that it’s become radical.

Answer 1

1.我们倾向于将作为永久建筑为有志古迹的地位，。这种建筑有它的位置。但是，没有一种不同的架构。
2.从2000年至今的第一个十年的大部分时间，建筑有关声明的建设。它是否是一个有争议的纪念或不可能的豪华公寓塔，架构的存在理由是一个持久的印象。建筑一直与永恒的代名词，但它应该是？
3.在过去的几年里，相反可能是真实的。在所有时间的低建筑账单。主要委员会并不多见。这使得新闻的架构是快速和短暂的弹出式商店，食品车，商场，表演场所。和许多流派的表现，而跳鲨鱼（即，玩具反斗城弹出店），是在临时不可否认的机会：它是一个恰当的反应在通量文明。像许多流行趋势 - 协同消费（又名，“共享”），社区花园，易货和贸易 - “临时”是复古，它已经成为激进。

哪里不好您在自己修改一下吧！希望采纳

Answer 2

1）我们倾向于将建筑视为一种永恒，视为一种对不朽的渴望。这种建筑是有其地位的；但另外一种也同样有。
2）在20世纪前10年的大部分时间里，建筑表达的是一种宣言。无论它是有争议的纪念碑，还是极尽奢华的塔楼，建筑就是为了制造一种永恒的印象。建筑总是等同于永恒。但建筑真的应该如此吗？

追问

第三段可以再帮我看一下吗？