This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay from the real test/exam on the topic of old and new buildings.
This is an agree/disagree essay so you can agree, disagree or write about both sides.
I always recommend writing about both sides so that you can have two clear main ideas, fully developed.
Check it out below!
Be sure to check out my Patreon exclusive essays as well.
Dave
Before reading, take a minute to listen to the audio for my sample answer to improve your listening skills:
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Old Buildings (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)
Too much money is wasted on repairing old buildings that should be used to knock them down and build new ones.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Real Past IELTS Tests
Many people today claim that too much money is being allocated to the upkeep of older buildings that would be better utilised on modern infrastructure. In my opinion, though new buildings are more practical, old buildings are indispensable cultural relics.
Progressive supporters of modernity rationally point out the actual utility of a building should be the priority. A good example of this would be in cities that have developed substantially in the last half century such as Kolkata, India. Rapid economic development there has overtaken sentimentality over both pre and post-Colonial architecture. It is commonplace for old buildings that no longer meet today’s safety standards to be bulldozed to build hospitals, hotels, restaurants, and offices. All these new buildings serve vital functions in a 21st century metropolis and are not merely for show, as the buildings relegated for demolition are.
Despite the above justifications, old buildings serve to maintain the irreplaceable cultural identity of a city. While cities like Kolkata and Beijing have ruthlessly swept aside the past in favour of an inevitable future, smaller cities like Chiang Mai in Thailand have managed to protect the majority of their historic buildings. The result is more than just tourist attractions like classic homes, old city walls and ancient pagodas. The residents of Chiang Mai, and other citizens of Thailand, can visit and be reminded of the beauty and resilience of their ancestors. In Beijing, the disdain for history encourages the nation at large to imitate the stubborn pursuit of progress characteristic of the 21st century.
In conclusion, old buildings ought to be preserved as they are important for a nation’s cultural identity. The governments that adopt this long-term, multifaceted view will reap the rewards of a more unified national citizenry.
Word count: 285
Analysis
1. Many people today claim that too much money is being allocated to the upkeep of older buildings that would be better utilised on modern infrastructure. 2. In my opinion, though new buildings are more practical, old buildings are indispensable cultural relics.
- Paraphrase the main topic for this essay. This sentence can be long or short – don’t waste much time on it.
- Give a clear opinion. I use the word ‘indispensible’ to make my opinion clear enough but I will also repeat it even more clearly in my conclusion.
1. Progressive supporters of modernity rationally point out the actual utility of a building should be the priority. 2. A good example of this would be in cities that have developed substantially in the last half century such as Kolkata, India. 3. Rapid economic development there has overtaken sentimentality over both pre and post-Colonial architecture. 4. It is commonplace for old buildings that no longer meet today’s safety standards to be bulldozed to build hospitals, hotels, restaurants, and offices. 5. All these new buildings serve vital functions in a 21st century metropolis and are not merely for show, as the buildings relegated for demolition are.
- Write a topic sentence with a main ideas at the end of the sentence. Just 1 main idea so that you can develop it fully.
- Start your example right away if possible – don’t waste any time!
- Be specific and continue developing the same example.
- Include specific lists and detail to bump up your task achievement, cohesion/coherence, and vocabulary.
- Relate the last sentence back to your main idea or finish developing your example.
1. Despite the above justifications, old buildings serve to maintain the irreplaceable cultural identity of a city. 2. While cities like Kolkata and Beijing have ruthlessly swept aside the past in favour of an inevitable future, smaller cities like Chiang Mai in Thailand have managed to protect the majority of their historic buildings. 3. The result is more than just tourist attractions like classic homes, old city walls and ancient pagodas. 4. The residents of Chiang Mai, and other citizens of Thailand, can visit and be reminded of the beauty and resilience of their ancestors. 5. In Beijing, the disdain for history encourages the nation at large to imitate the stubborn pursuit of progress characteristic of the 21st century.
- Another topic sentence, with another single main idea that you can fully develop.
- Begin another specific example. This time I use a comparative example because it suits this question.
- Again, give specific details.
- Continue with the same example – don’t switch to a new one.
- Finish developing the example. Here I bring it back to Beijing to strengthen my support.
1. In conclusion, old buildings ought to be preserved as they are important for a nation’s cultural identity. 2. The governments that adopt this long-term, multifaceted view will reap the rewards of a more unified national citizenry.
- Repeat your opinion and make sure it is totally clear at this point or you risk a band 5 for task achievement.
- Add an extra detail/final thought to the end. Read more about your conclusion here.
Vocabulary
Take some notes on what the words in bold below mean:
Many people today claim that too much money is being allocated to the upkeep of older buildings that would be better utilised on modern infrastructure. In my opinion, though new buildings are more practical, old buildings are indispensable cultural relics.
Progressive supporters of modernity rationally point out the actual utility of a building should be the priority. A good example of this would be in cities that have developed substantially in the last half century such as Kolkata, India. Rapid economic development there has overtaken sentimentality over both pre and post-Colonial architecture. It is commonplace for old buildings that no longer meet today’s safety standards to be bulldozed to build hospitals, hotels, restaurants, and offices. All these new buildings serve vital functions in a 21st century metropolis and are not merely for show, as the buildings relegated for demolition are.
Despite the above justifications, old buildings serve to maintain the irreplaceable cultural identity of a city. While cities like Kolkata and Beijing have ruthlessly swept aside the past in favour of an inevitable future, smaller cities like Chiang Mai in Thailand have managed to protect the majority of their historic buildings. The result is more than just tourist attractions like classic homes, old city walls and ancient pagodas. The residents of Chiang Mai, and other citizens of Thailand, can visit and be reminded of the beauty and resilience of their ancestors. In Beijing, the disdain for history encourages the nation at large to imitate the stubborn pursuit of progress characteristic of the 21st century.
In conclusion, old buildings ought to be preserved as they are important for a nation’s cultural identity. The governments that adopt this long-term, multifaceted view will reap the rewards of a more unified national citizenry.
Answers
allocated assigned to
upkeep maintanence
better utilised used for a better purpose
modern infrastructure new buildings
practical useful
indispensable cultural relics cannot be replaced historic artefacts
progressive supporters those in favour of modern thinking
modernity the present moment
rationally logically/makes sense
point out argue
actual utility can be used in the real world
priority more important
developed substantially made a lot of progress
last half century last 50 years
Kolkata a city in India, also known as Calcutta
rapid economic development the economy developing quickly
overtaken sentimentality become more important than feelings
pre and post-Colonial architecture buildings before and after English occupation
commonplace ubiquitous
no longer meet today’s safety standards unsafe
bulldozed destroyed
serve vital functions provide essential services
21st century metropolis modern city
not merely for show actually useful
relegated dismissed, diminished
demolition destruction
despite in spite of, notwithstanding
justifications reasons/excuses
serve to maintain are used to preserve
irreplaceable cultural identity cannot be replaced sense of a culture/society
ruthlessly swept aside unfeelingly dismissed
in favour of preferring
inevitable future cannot be escaped
managed to protect were able to preserve
majority most of
ancient pagodas old temples
reminded make people remember
resilience strength
ancestors previous generations
disdain look down on
encourages reinforces
nation at large all of the country
imitate copy
stubborn pursuit single-minded, thoughless search
progress characteristic of the 21st century the advancing nature of the world
preserved protected
nation’s cultural identity the qualities that make countries unique
long-term over a long period of time
multifaceted view many perspectives
reap the rewards gain benefits from
more unified national citizenry united, patriotic country
Pronunciation
ˈæləʊkeɪtɪd
ˈʌpkiːp
ˈbɛtə ˈjuːtɪˌlaɪzd
ˈmɒdən ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌkʧə
ˈpræktɪkəl
ˌɪndɪsˈpɛnsəbl ˈkʌlʧərəl ˈrɛlɪks
prəʊˈgrɛsɪv səˈpɔːtəz
mɒˈdɜːnɪti
ˈræʃnəli
pɔɪnt aʊt
ˈækʧʊəl ju(ː)ˈtɪlɪti
praɪˈɒrɪti
dɪˈvɛləpt səbˈstænʃəli
lɑːst hɑːf ˈsɛnʧʊri
kælˈkʌtə
ˈræpɪd ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪk dɪˈvɛləpmənt
ˌəʊvəˈteɪkən ˌsɛntɪmɛnˈtælɪti
priː ænd pəʊst-kəˈləʊniəl ˈɑːkɪtɛkʧə
ˈkɒmənpleɪs
nəʊ ˈlɒŋgə miːt təˈdeɪz ˈseɪfti ˈstændədz
ˈbʊldəʊzd
sɜːv ˈvaɪtl ˈfʌŋkʃənz
ˈtwɛnti-fɜːst ˈsɛnʧʊri mɪˈtrɒpəlɪs
nɒt ˈmɪəli fɔː ʃəʊ
ˈrɛlɪgeɪtɪd
ˌdɛməˈlɪʃən
dɪsˈpaɪt
ˌʤʌstɪfɪˈkeɪʃənz
sɜːv tuː meɪnˈteɪn
ˌɪrɪˈpleɪsəbl ˈkʌlʧərəl aɪˈdɛntɪti
ˈruːθlɪsli swɛpt əˈsaɪd
ɪn ˈfeɪvər ɒv
ɪnˈɛvɪtəbl ˈfjuːʧə
ˈmænɪʤd tuː prəˈtɛkt
məˈʤɒrɪti
ˈeɪnʃ(ə)nt pəˈgəʊdəz
ˈrɪmaɪndɪd
rɪˈzɪlɪəns
ˈænsɪstəz
dɪsˈdeɪn
ɪnˈkʌrɪʤɪz
ˈneɪʃən æt lɑːʤ
ˈɪmɪteɪt
ˈstʌbən pəˈsjuːt
ˈprəʊgrəs ˌkærɪktəˈrɪstɪk ɒv ðə ˈtwɛnti-fɜːst ˈsɛnʧʊri
prɪˈzɜːvd
ˈneɪʃənz ˈkʌlʧərəl aɪˈdɛntɪti
ˈlɒŋtɜːm
ˌmʌltɪˈfæsɪtɪd vjuː
riːp ðə rɪˈwɔːdz
mɔː ˈjuːnɪfaɪd ˈnæʃənl ˈsɪtɪznri
Listen and repeat:
Vocabulary Practice
Many people today claim that too much money is being _____________ to the _____________ of older buildings that would be _____________ on _____________. In my opinion, though new buildings are more _____________, old buildings are _____________.
_____________ of _____________ _____________ _____________ the _____________ of a building should be the _____________. A good example of this would be in cities that have _____________ in the _____________ such as _____________ , India. _____________ there has _____________ over both _____________ . It is _____________ for old buildings that _____________ to be _____________ to build hospitals, hotels, restaurants, and offices. All these new buildings _____________ in a _____________ and are _____________, as the buildings _____________ for _____________ are.
_____________ the above _____________, old buildings _____________ the _____________ of a city. While cities like Kolkata and Beijing have _____________ the past _____________ an _____________, smaller cities like Chiang Mai in Thailand have _____________ the _____________ of their historic buildings. The result is more than just tourist attractions like classic homes, old city walls and _____________. The residents of Chiang Mai, and other citizens of Thailand, can visit and be _____________ of the beauty and _____________ of their _____________. In Beijing, the _____________ for history _____________ the _____________ to _____________ the _____________ of _____________.
In conclusion, old buildings ought to be _____________ as they are important for a _____________. The governments that adopt this _____________, _____________ will _____________ of a _____________.
Listen and check:
Listening Practice
Learn about another possible example for this topic, Karachi in Pakistan:
Reading Practice
Read the article below and if you are from India or Kolkata please let me know in the comments if it is accurate or not!
“ Many people today claim that too much money is being allocated to the upkeep of older buildings that would be better utilised on modern infrastructure“. I think this sentence is unclear for me. What is the subject of the clause “ that would be better utilised on modern infrastructure” ? Is it “ too much money” ?
It is the full phrase: too much money is being allocated to the upkeep of older buildings. So the meaning is that the money spent maintaining older buildings would be better spent on new buildings – the topic of the essay.
Could anyone evaluate my writing, please?
Huge sums of money are being allocated to the repair and maintenance of ancient buildings that would be better diverted into the construction of modern housing. In my view, while it might be said that buildings are not just valuable because they are old, I believe that they enhance people’s sense of belonging to a group and benefit the tourist trade, which makes it a priority over the construction of new ones.
A key reason why old building repair schemes ought to be better funded is that they play a crucial role in shaping a nation’s cultural identity, which gives the individual a sense of belonging to a group. As a result, people always take pride in their countries’ ancient history and think twice before leaving or migrating to another country. Besides, promising professionals are usually linked to their nation’s unique architecture, which deters the brain drain.
A second reason is that it benefits a nation’s economy in several ways. To illustrate, millions of tourists are often drawn to historical buildings, which promotes the tourist industry. Moreover, the larger the number of tourists visiting a country, the greater the number of employment opportunities, and the higher the amount of foreign currency brought in.
Finally, knocking down old buildings to build new ones will only solve the housing problem minimally. This is because most old buildings are usually located in urban centers of cities, where land price is extremely high. As a result, if these buildings were abolished and new housing complexes were built instead, apartment prices would be beyond most people’s means.
In conclusion, despite the knocking down of historical buildings marginally contributes to solving the housing problem in urban centers, preserving them would bring more good for the individual and the countries’ economies.
Really good writing but I wish you used some examples in the earlier paragraphs!
In opinion essay type, Is it necessary to have the idea you are supporting is to be quoted in the “body paragraph 1”? or it must go to the “body paragraph 2” only?
Both are fine!
It feels natural for me to write it this way but I would never mark down a student who does it the other way.
Writing
Yep!
Could anyone evaluate my essay, please?
In order to maintain old buildings, investments should be made by governments or private institutions. A few people consider this a waste of money, and purpose the replacement of those old constructions by new ones. I am absolutely sure that the maintenance of those buildings are the best option, in respect of the budget and of the historical value.
Firstly, because of the amount and size of those old structures, their conservation usually represents a significant value on the budget of organizations. On the other hand, although it seems to be cheaper to replace them, usually the costs of demolition, material removing and construction will overcome the costs of maintenance. In general, old structures have just a few problems, and the most important is the continuous maintenance. For example, in Brazil the budget is well limited to conserve old buildings, and supported by studies, the government chooses to preserve the majority of old buildings, as they do not have had critical damages.
In respect of the historical aspect, for cities and nations they represent pieces of the past and should be viewed as any other historic object. In view of that, many of those buildings should be preserved to keep alive traditions and symbolisms of other times. To illustrate, the historic downtown of Rio de Janeiro has a typical two-storey house in many old streets. Those buildings were constructed by immigrants mainly in the early decades of 20th century, and the first stories were dedicated to sell shops and the second stories were housing of the owners. Nowadays, Rio de Janeiro is also known for those kinds of constructions. Hence, I disagree that old buildings should be replaced by modern ones.
To conclude, the discussion around waste of money regarding maintenance of old buildings has importance when the budget is very limited. However, costs related to demolition and construction of new buildings usually are higher than those of conservation. Furthermore, old constructions have value under historic aspects. Thus, it is better to preserve and keep a routine of maintenance in old buildings.