Приклади вживання Building was not Англійська мовою та їх переклад на Українською
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The building was not always a temple.
During the investigation, the building was not evacuated.
The building was not in the list of dangerous buildings. .
Then(5 years ago) revealed major violations, and this year, the building was not even the priority for verification!
The building was not air conditioned and had no TV.
By 2004, the church had grown to the extent that the building was not large enough to fit the entire congregation.
The building was not in good shape and had to be renovated.
The contract stipulated completion by June 24, 1938, but the building was not ready for occupancy until December 2, 1938.
The building was not damaged during World War II so on August 10, 1944 military unit 7480 was quartered there again.
If the geographer's description of the mausoleum is correct, then the building was not intended just for Juba and Cleopatra, but envisaged as a dynastic funeral monument for their royal descendants.
The building was not destroyed during the Soviet period, obviously, because it has excellent acoustics and it installed fine vintage organ.
However, this was rejected by the university's administration because the building was not intended for this purpose and there were many other facilities in close proximity where such research could take place.
But the building was not ruined since no other better premises with such wonderful acoustics could be found for the philharmonic society in the tumbledown city.
During the quarter, building was not too dense, but farther up the tower and V to the southern gate, is a solid block of ruins.
So the building is not in great condition.
This building is not only a museum.
The building is not owned by the city.
Inside, the building is not as attractive as outside.
The building is not in operation, is disconnected from utility networks.
Other rooms in the building were not documented at the time.
State building is not their priority, nor was it NATO's.
Our decision to redeem and transfer the building is not accidental.
I want to emphasize that the building is not a problem.
The buildings were not preserved to these days.
(a) the contract was not void for mistake since at the time the contract was made the building wasn't listed;
This building is not only an interesting object, but also the Central Library of the State.
The high cost of rent payments(if the building is not in the entrepreneur's property);
But the dream of a rapid and serene building is not worth it, even if there is enough money to all the work done for you.
PS Also Oleg Olashyn refuted Borshovsky's statement that the building is not an architectural monument and presented evidence.
I'm not saying that old buildings are not energy efficient, they are faced with a problem of worn-out communications, with high utility bills.