The plans show a science park in 2010, and the same park in 2012. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
The two maps illustrate the layout of a science park in 2010 and its appearance after redevelopment by 2012.
Overall, significant changes were made to the western part of the park, with the addition of new buildings and improved transportation facilities. While some structures, such as the IT Centre, were repurposed, others were expanded or replaced entirely. Additionally, connectivity within the park was enhanced through the introduction of cycle paths, a bus station, and a railway station.
In 2010, the southwestern part of the park contained a woodland area near the circular IT Centre, which was connected to the Cyber Security building in the southeast by a small path. A car park was centrally located, linked to the Business Units in the west, the IT Centre in the southwest, and the Cyber Security building. To the north, there were Offices and a Reception building, positioned along a road running from east to west, which connected to another road extending northeast. The northwest area featured a grassland, and there was a small patch of woodland in the northern part of the park. A railway line ran along the southern edge of the park.
By 2012, several modernizations and additions had taken place. The IT Centre was converted into an Innovation Centre, while the Cyber Security building was expanded toward the main road. A new Research and Development building replaced the grassland in the northwest and was connected to the Offices and a newly constructed University Hub, which took the place of the Reception building. Although the woodland areas in the southwest and east remained unchanged, the central car park was slightly reduced in size.
Transportation facilities were significantly improved. A railway station was built on the southern railway line and was connected to all major buildings in the park. A bus station was also constructed near the road in the northeast. Additionally, cycle paths were added along both the east-west and northeast roads, improving accessibility throughout the park.
The essay is logically organized and ideas are connected well. The use of cohesive devices is effective, and the progression of the essay is smooth.
The vocabulary used is varied and appropriately academic. There are some good collocations and less common phrases.
The essay uses a wide range of structures and there are few grammatical errors.
The essay provides a detailed comparison between the two maps and describes the changes that took place. It also makes clear which parts of the park were affected by these changes.