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

[Maybo]

I have chosen an IELTS practice writing topic. Please check the essay and correct any mistakes. Please also let me know any part of it could be more concise.

Topic: It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings. This money should be spent on building modern buildings instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that money should be spent on constructing modern buildings instead of restoring old buildings. However, I disagree with this idea because the benefits of conserving existing buildings on the economy, environment, and public health are considerable.

Conserving buildings creates fewer pollutants than building new ones does. Both demolition and construction will produce a huge amount of industrial waste, and it damages the environment. The government have to put extra resources into processing toxic pollutants. If we keep old buildings, it saves costs on preserving the environment. In addition, people don’t need to throw away the furniture if they can stay at their original places. Some furniture such as bunk beds are not secure after reassembling.

Another benefit is that when pollutants are fewer, people’s health is better. During construction, air pollution is serious, and it especially affects people living around. If we keep building new buildings, people may have long-term health issues such as asthma, and this will add burdens on the governments ‘medical costs. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low. Some talented professionals may emigrate to another country for a better living environment. All these negative impacts will affect the economy of a country.

In conclusion, it’s more economical to conserve buildings. Although money spent on repairing old buildings is expensive, the costs of protecting the environment and public health cannot be neglected.

 

[tedmc]

I have chosen an IELTS practice writing topic. Please check the essay and correct any mistakes. Please also let me know any part of it could be more concise.

Topic: It is too expensive to look after and repair old buildings. This money should be spent on building modern buildings instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that money should be spent on constructing modern buildings instead of restoring old buildings. However, I disagree with this idea because the benefits of conserving existing buildings on the economy, environment, and public health of a country are considerable.

Conserving buildings [STRIKE]creates fewer pollutants[/STRIKE] is more environmentally friendly/causes less pollution than building new ones [STRIKE]does[/STRIKE]. Both demolition and construction will produce a huge amount of industrial waste, and it damages the environment. The government have to [STRIKE]put extra resources into processing toxic pollutants.[/STRIKE] take measures to overcome pollution (not all "pollutants" can be processed. Industrial waste is not a pollutant; it is a source of pollution). If we keep (preserve) old buildings, it saves costs [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] in preserving the environment. In addition, people don’t need to throw away(discard) [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] their furniture if they [STRIKE]can stay at their original places[/STRIKE] do not move out from where they live. Some furniture such as bunk beds are not secure after reassembling.

Another benefit is that, when [STRIKE]pollutants are fewer[/STRIKE] there is less pollution, people’s health is better (people are more healthy). [STRIKE]During[/STRIKE]
The construction of buildings gives rise to a lot of air pollution [STRIKE]is serious[/STRIKE], 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 [STRIKE]add burdens on[/STRIKE] become a burden to the governments ‘medical [STRIKE]costs[/STRIKE] expenditure. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low. Some talented professionals may emigrate to another country for a better living environment. All these will negatively impact[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]will affect[/STRIKE] the economy of a country.

In conclusion, it’s more economical to conserve buildings (preserve existing buildings). Although [STRIKE]money spent on[/STRIKE] repairing old buildings is expensive, it would save the costs in protecting the environment and public health [STRIKE]cannot be neglected[/STRIKE].

See above. I think "preserve" is a better word to use than "conserve" to refer to the maintenance of buildings in good, habitable condition.

 

[teechar]

I have chosen an IELTS practice writing topic.

When are you planning to sit for the test?

 

[Maybo]

When are you planning to sit for the test?

In January or February.

 

[tedmc]

Something about the difference between conserve and preserve when used with buildings:

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/conserve-vs-preserve.795689/

Conserve is mostly used with natural resources though there is some overlap.

 

[Tarheel]

Maybe, the verb you are looking for is maintain. We maintain buildings to keep them in good repair.

All things are relative. Something is expensive compared to something else. Also, it depends on whose money you are spending.

 

[tedmc]

Maybe, the verb you are looking for is maintain. We maintain buildings to keep them in good repair.

All things are relative. Something is expensive compared to something else. Also, it depends on whose money you are spending.

Old buildings need more than maintenance (looking after). They need to be repaired first. It is a choice between building new buildings and continue reusing old buildings.
Maybo - By the way, you have not mentioned about the other aspect of preserving old buildings as a heritage as they form part of the character of a place. This aspect cannot be measured in financial terms.

 

[teechar]

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

For a start,[STRIKE] Conserving [/STRIKE] maintaining existing buildings [STRIKE] creates fewer pollutants [/STRIKE] causes much less pollution than does building new ones. [STRIKE] does. [/STRIKE] Both demolition and construction will produce a [ 1] significant[STRIKE] huge [/STRIKE] amount of industrial waste, and [STRIKE] it damages [/STRIKE] that impacts the environment. In fact,[STRIKE] The government [/STRIKE] the authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. If we keep old buildings, it saves costs on preserving the environment. In addition, people don’t need to throw away the furniture if they can stay at their original places. Some furniture such as bunk beds are not secure after reassembling. [ 2]

[ 1]: “huge” is not formal.
[ 2]: That is a poor example, but more importantly, it does not relate to the topic of that paragraph (pollution). I suggest you move the idea about health from the second body paragraph into this one, and make your second paragraph about, for example, the aesthetic/architectural/historic/national/sentimental value of old buildings. Try to give some examples. You will get better marks if you do.

Revise your essay and repost it below.

 

[emsr2d2]

This might be of interest (I hope users outside the UK can access the site).

 

[Tarheel]

Old buildings need more than maintenance (looking after). They need to be repaired first. It is a choice between building new buildings and continue to use old buildings.

Maybo - By the way, you have not mentioned [STRIKE]about[/STRIKE] the other aspect of preserving old buildings as a heritage as they form part of the character of a place. This aspect cannot be measured in financial terms.

We repair things that are broken. Also, maintenance is a continuing process.

 

[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 on the economy, the environment, and public health are concerned.

For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction will produce a significant amount of industrial waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, the authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. If there is less pollution, people are healthier. The construction of 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 become a burden to the governments‘ medical expenditure. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low. Some talented professionals may emigrate to another country for a better living environment. All these will negatively impact the economy of a country.

The aesthetic and historic old buildings can inspire people and generate a lot of profit. Historic heritage has its own uniqueness in design and culture. The artistic features can be a source of inspiration for designers to create beautiful products. Many people fall in love with a country because of its history and culture, and therefore its representative sites can attract many tourists, and they would buy souvenirs with related elements, such as clothes, decorations, or paintings. It can help provide many job opportunities and money.

In conclusion, it’s more economical and profitable to preserve existing buildings. Although money spent on repairing old buildings is expensive, it would save the costs in protecting the environment and public health.

 

[Tarheel]

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 on the economy, the environment, and public health are concerned.

For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction will produce a significant amount of industrial waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, the authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. If there is less pollution, people are healthier. The construction of 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 become a burden to the governments‘ medical expenditure. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low. Some talented professionals may emigrate to another country for a better living environment. All these will negatively impact the economy of a country.

The esthetically pleasing and historic old buildings can inspire people and generate a lot of profit. Historic heritage has its own uniqueness in design and culture. The artistic features can be a source of inspiration for designers to create beautiful products. Many people fall in love with a country because of its history and culture, and therefore its representative sites can attract many tourists, and they would buy souvenirs with related elements, such as clothes, decorations, or paintings. It can help provide many job opportunities.

In conclusion, it’s more economical and profitable to preserve existing buildings than to build new ones. Although money spent on maintaining old buildings is considerable, it would save the costs in protecting the environment and public health.

I don't agree with the basic premise that you have to choose between maintaining existing buildings and erecting new ones. (When that choice is made it's a choice between maintaining the existing building or demolishing it and erecting a new one.) However, you did quite well.

 

[tedmc]

[STRIKE]The aesthetic[/STRIKE] Beautiful and historic old buildings can inspire people and generate a lot of profit (How does people being inspired generate profit?) . Historic heritage has its own uniqueness in design and culture. The artistic features can be a source of inspiration for designers to create beautiful products. [STRIKE]Many [/STRIKE]People [STRIKE]fall in love with[/STRIKE] are drawn to a country because of its history and culture, and therefore its [STRIKE]representative[/STRIKE] historic sites can attract many tourists, and they would buy souvenirs with related elements, such as clothes, decorations, or paintings (the tourism industry would flourish). [STRIKE]It can help provide many[/STRIKE] The boost to the tourist industry generates job opportunities and[STRIKE] money[/STRIKE] income.

In conclusion, it’s more economical and profitable to preserve existing buildings than building new ones. Although [STRIKE]money spent on[/STRIKE] the costs of repairing old buildings is[STRIKE] expensive[/STRIKE] high, it would[STRIKE] save [/STRIKE] offset the costs [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE] of protecting the environment and public health.

 

[emsr2d2]

What happened to the layout of your post, ted?

 

[Tarheel]

Ted, it's the historic buildings that generate profit. (I'm not sure how.)

 

[Maybo]

Ted, it's the historic buildings that generate profit. (I'm not sure how.)

They attract tourists.

 

[Tarheel]

I get that, but surely it doesn't cost anything too look at a building. Are there tours of old buildings?

 

[Maybo]

I get that, but surely it doesn't cost anything too look at a building. Are there tours of old buildings?

Maybe. Some require people to buy tickets if they want to go inside the buildings. Some shops also sell souvenirs related to the 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 on the economy, the environment, and public health are concerned.

For a start, maintaining existing buildings causes much less pollution than does building new ones. Both demolition and construction [STRIKE] will [/STRIKE] produce a significant amount of [STRIKE] industrial [/STRIKE] waste, and that impacts the environment. In fact, [STRIKE] the [/STRIKE] authorities often have to put extra resources into processing such toxic pollutants. [STRIKE] If there is [/STRIKE] Moreover, less pollution means healthier people. [STRIKE] are healthier. [/STRIKE] 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 [STRIKE] become a burden [/STRIKE] add to the government’s[STRIKE] medical [/STRIKE] expenditure on health. Also, if people are not healthy, their productivity is low, and some [STRIKE] talented professionals [/STRIKE] may even opt to emigrate to another country [STRIKE] for a better living [/STRIKE] 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. [STRIKE] can inspire people and generate a lot of profit. [/STRIKE] Historic [STRIKE] heritage has its own [/STRIKE] buildings are often unique[STRIKE] ness [/STRIKE] in their design. [STRIKE] and culture. [/STRIKE]

The rest of that paragraph is somewhat off topic. Focus on explaining the value of historic/old buildings, not on souvenirs and clothes! Try to give some examples of famous old buildings to support your argument. Revise and post below.

 

[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 on the economy, the environment, public health, and social development 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 recorded the evolution of a city. For example, Hong Kong is a place where East meets West. Some districts are mixed with classical western buildings and traditional Chinese temples. People can learn about its colonial history through these buildings, which helps citizens reflect on and explore their identities. Also, collective memories developed from historic buildings are essential for a community to create a sense of cohesion.

In conclusion, 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.