IELTS writing II: It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings.

[teechar]

Some people argue that money should be spent on constructing modern buildings instead of on trying to preserve and maintain old ones. However, I disagree with this idea, because the benefits of keeping existing buildings are considerable as far as [STRIKE]on [/STRIKE] the economy, the environment, public health, and [STRIKE]social development[/STRIKE] national identity are concerned.

For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction produce a significant amount of waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. Moreover, less pollution means healthier people. The construction of new buildings gives rise to a lot of air pollution, and it especially affects people living around the site. If we keep building new buildings, people may have long-term health issues such as asthma, and this will add to the government’s expenditure on health. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low, and some may even opt to emigrate to another country to live in a cleaner environment. All these factors will negatively impact the economy of a country.

In addition, the aesthetic and historic values of old buildings should not be overlooked. Historic buildings are often unique in their design and they typically record [STRIKE] ed [/STRIKE] the evolution of a city. For example, Hong Kong is a place where East meets West. Some districts [STRIKE] are mixed with [/STRIKE] have a mix of classical Western buildings and traditional Chinese houses and temples. People can learn about its colonial history [STRIKE] through these buildings, [/STRIKE] from this unique architecture, which helps citizens reflect on and explore their identities. Also, collective memories [STRIKE] developed from [/STRIKE] associated with historic buildings [STRIKE] are essential for a community to create [/STRIKE] can engender a sense of cohesion in a community.

In conclusion, [ 1] it’s more economical and educational to preserve existing buildings than building new ones. Although the costs of repairing old buildings are high, it would offset the costs of protecting the environment and public health. Most importantly, the intangible value of a historic building is irreplaceable and unmeasurable.

[ 1]: Do not use contractions in formal writing. [STRIKE] it’s [/STRIKE] -------> it is.
The conclusion should be concise and should summarize the main points/findings from all the body paragraph. Revise and post below.

 

[tedmc]

We say historic buildings but not historic values. I would use historical with values.

I would say sense of identity instead of sense of cohesion.

 

[teechar]

We say historic buildings but not historic values.

No. That is incorrect! There is nothing wrong with "historic value".

I would use historical with values.

You can if you wish.

I would say sense of identity instead of sense of cohesion.

Again, you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with "a sense of cohesion" in that text.
Tedmc, while you are welcome to ask questions on the forum, I suggest you hold back on offering advice to learners. You are not sufficiently proficient in English to be able to do that, especially as far as natural phrasing is concerned.

 

[Maybo]

This is my revised version.

Some people argue that money should be spent on constructing modern buildings instead of on trying to preserve and maintain old ones. However, I disagree with this idea, because the benefits of keeping existing buildings are considerable as far as the economy, the environment, public health, and national identity are concerned.

For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction produce a significant amount of waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. Moreover, less pollution means healthier people. The construction of new buildings gives rise to a lot of air pollution, and it especially affects people living around the site. If we keep building new buildings, people may have long-term health issues such as asthma, and this will add to the government’s expenditure on health. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low, and some may even opt to emigrate to another country to live in a cleaner environment. All these factors will negatively impact the economy of a country.

In addition, the aesthetic and historic values of old buildings should not be overlooked. Historic buildings are often unique in their design and they typically record the evolution of a city. For example, Hong Kong is a place where East meets West. Some districts have a mix of classical Western buildings and traditional Chinese houses and temples. People can learn about its colonial history from this unique architecture, which helps citizens reflect on and explore their identities. Also, collective memories associated with historic buildings can engender a sense of cohesion in a community.

In conclusion, although the costs of repairing old buildings are high, preserve existing buildings is beneficial to the economy, the environment, public health and constituting a national identity.

 

[teechar]

although the costs of repairing old buildings are high

In which body paragraph did you discuss this idea?

 

[Maybo]

In which body paragraph did you discuss this idea?

The topic set that it is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings.

 

[teechar]

In conclusion, although [STRIKE]the costs of repairing old buildings are high, preserve existing[/STRIKE] maintaining old buildings may be costly to some extent, it is beneficial to the economy, the environment, public health and [STRIKE]constituting a[/STRIKE] to a country's national identity.

.

 

[Maybo]

.

Would my last paragraph be too simple?

 

[teechar]

[STRIKE]Would[/STRIKE] Is my last paragraph [STRIKE]be[/STRIKE] too simple?

"Would" is used for hypothetical situations.
What do you mean?

 

[Maybo]

"Would" is used for hypothetical situations.
What do you mean?

Is it too short for a conclusion because I only have one sentence?

 

[teechar]

No, it's not too short.

 

[Tarheel]

Try:

Although the cost of maintaining old buildings is high (compared to what?), preserving existing buildings preserving existing existing buildings is beneficial to the economy, the environment, and public heslth.

I don't understand the last part. So I wouldn't use it.

I don't use "in conclusion" and probably wouldn't have used that last paragraph at all.

You are asking a lot of a building.