Should A City Try to Preserve Its Old, Historic Buildings or Destroy Them and Replace Them with Modern Buildings? - IELTS Task 2 Sample Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

Cities frequently wrestle with whether to safeguard their architectural heritage or clear it to make way for contemporary development. In my view, preservation should remain the dominant approach because historic structures nurture social cohesion and provide long-term environmental advantages. In this essay, I will argue first that conserving old buildings strengthens civic identity and intergenerational belonging, and second that preservation is often a more sustainable and climate -conscious urban strategy than large-scale demolition and reconstruction.

A primary reason cities should preserve historic buildings is that they anchor social identity and foster a deeper sense of shared belonging. Old structures serve as tangible markers of a community’s evolution, allowing residents to situate their own experiences within a broader historical continuum. When neighbourhoods retain their traditional town halls, marketplaces or courtyards, they provide public spaces where diverse groups interact, strengthening social cohesion. For example, many European cities that preserved medieval squares—Prague’s Old Town or Bruges’ Markt—observe higher levels of civic participation because people feel emotionally rooted in places that manifest their collective past. Demolition, by contrast, often erases these memory-laden sites, producing generic streetscapes that weaken emotional connection and accelerate cultural homogenisation. Therefore, preservation is not merely aesthetic; it is fundamental to maintaining vibrant, socially integrated communities.

A second compelling argument for prioritising historic conservation lies in the environmental and sustainability benefits that such an approach offers. Retrofitting existing buildings typically demands far fewer raw materials and significantly reduces construction-related emissions, making it a crucial tool for cities aiming to meet ambitious climate targets. The carbon embedded in brick, timber and stone represents decades of environmental cost; demolishing such structures wastes this investment and multiplies emissions through new production processes. Cities like Copenhagen have demonstrated that upgrading older housing blocks with energy-efficient insulation and smart ventilation systems yields substantial carbon savings without sacrificing architectural heritage. Additionally, preserving compact historical districts curbs urban sprawl, reducing transportation emissions and protecting green belts. Thus, conservation aligns closely with contemporary sustainability imperatives and responsible resource management.

In conclusion, cities should prioritise the protection of their historic architecture because it strengthens social identity and delivers long-term environmental benefits. By valuing old structures as cultural anchors and sustainable assets, urban planners can achieve progress without severing the roots that give cities their meaning.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

Cities should not treat historic buildings as disposable relics; rather, they ought to prioritise preservation while allowing selective, well-justified replacement. Preserving heritage fosters a sense of continuity and identity, supports tourism and local economies, and is often environmentally preferable to demolition. In the body I will argue that adaptive reuse and conservation deliver cultural and economic benefits, and then address the legitimate needs for modernisation, proposing pragmatic criteria for when replacement is appropriate.

Historic buildings are repositories of collective memory and urban character, so their retention yields social and economic dividends. Architecturally significant structures draw visitors, sustain local businesses and generate civic pride—think of how the conversion of the Bankside Power Station into Tate Modern revitalised Southwark’s economy and cultural scene. Conservation also supports education: preserved streetscapes allow future generations to read a city’s history in situ. From an economic standpoint, restoration projects can be catalysts for neighbourhood regeneration, attracting investment more reliably than undistinguished new-builds. Thus, thoughtful preservation is not merely sentimental; it is a strategic, place-sensitive form of urban development.

Nevertheless, there are valid circumstances that justify demolition and modern replacement, and these must be tightly constrained. Buildings that are structurally unsound, present unresolvable health hazards, or whose footprints are essential for critical infrastructure may need replacement. Even then, demolition should be the last resort because adaptive reuse frequently outperforms new construction on environmental metrics: retaining embodied energy in walls and foundations reduces carbon emissions compared with wholesale teardown. A balanced policy therefore requires rigorous structural assessment, heritage impact studies, and incentives for developers to integrate old fabric into new programmes—façade retention, mixed-use retrofit, or vertical extensions can reconcile conservation with contemporary needs.

In conclusion, cities should favour preservation and adaptive reuse as default strategies, because they safeguard cultural identity, bolster economies and often reduce environmental costs, while permitting carefully regulated replacement only when safety or essential functionality cannot be achieved otherwise. This nuanced approach secures both heritage and progress.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!