One app for all your study abroad needs
The value of space and modern infrastructure has increased and is now being prioritised. Cities are expanding, and technology is being updated regularly. With these major changes, the question of whether historical buildings should be demolished or preserved has become a topic of growing debate. While some believe that removing these old structures allows for progress and more practical land use, others argue that such buildings hold cultural and historical significance that should be protected.
This essay, titled ‘Some People Say That Historical Buildings Should Be Knocked Down While Others Say That They Should Be Preserved, IELTS Writing Task 2,’ will explore both perspectives and explain why the preservation of historical buildings is essential for maintaining societal identity and continuity.
This Blog Includes:
- Some People Say That Historical Buildings Should Be Knocked Down, While Others Say That They Should Be Preserved. Discuss Both Views and Give Your Opinion: Samples and Essays
- Sample Essay Structure 1: Balance Approach
- Sample Structure 2: Supporting the Preservation of Historical Building
- Sample Structure 3: Against the Preservation of Historical Buildings
- FAQs
Some People Say That Historical Buildings Should Be Knocked Down, While Others Say That They Should Be Preserved. Discuss Both Views and Give Your Opinion: Samples and Essays
Here are 3 different perspectives for the topic IELTS Writing Task 2 ‘Some People Say That Historical Buildings Should Be Knocked Down While Others Say That They Should Be Preserved’, along with lexical resources and their respective word meanings. Check out each one and find the easy solutions to score good marks.
Sample Essay Structure 1: Balance Approach
Introduction
- Introduce the debate about historical buildings: preservation vs. demolition for development.
- Briefly mention both sides.
- State that a balanced approach is needed.
First Body Paragraph: Arguments for Demolition
- Present reasons why some support demolishing historical buildings (Example: Urban development, efficient land use, cost, safety, and modern standards).
- Acknowledge the value of these practical concerns.
Second Body Paragraph: Arguments for Preservation
- Present reasons for preserving historical buildings (Example: Cultural heritage, tourism, city character, environmental benefits of restoration).
- Highlight the significance of these points.
Third Body Paragraph: Proposing a Balanced Solution
- Suggest that not all historical buildings need to be preserved, nor should all be demolished.
- Propose criteria for deciding which buildings to keep (Example: Historical importance, architectural uniqueness, potential for adaptive reuse).
- Discuss integrating old and new architecture in urban planning.
- Emphasise the importance of community input and expert assessment.
Conclusion
- Summarise both sides and the need for balance.
- Restate that a thoughtful, case-by-case approach allows cities to preserve their heritage while still progressing and meeting modern needs.
Sample Essay
The debate over whether historical buildings should be preserved or demolished for modern development is a significant issue in many urban areas. While some believe that replacing old structures with new ones ensures efficiency and growth, others argue that preserving historical architecture is vital for maintaining cultural identity. In my view, a balanced approach is necessary, one that respects heritage while allowing room for practical urban progress.
Supporters of demolition often point out that historical buildings occupy valuable urban land that could be used more efficiently for housing, offices, or public infrastructure. They also note that maintaining old structures can be expensive, and that many do not meet current safety or environmental standards. From this perspective, constructing modern buildings can lead to greater efficiency and better serve the needs of a growing population. These are practical concerns that cities cannot entirely ignore, especially when facing rapid urban expansion.
Conversely, many people argue that historical buildings provide a vital link to the past and help preserve the unique culture of a community. Such structures contribute to a city’s character and can attract tourists, which benefits local businesses and the economy. Furthermore, restoring and repurposing old buildings is often more environmentally friendly than demolition and new construction, as it reduces waste and conserves resources. For these reasons, preserving historical architecture plays a crucial role in safeguarding cultural identity and supporting sustainable development.
According to me, when choosing between complete demolition or full preservation, cities should adopt a balanced solution. Not all historical buildings need to be saved, nor should all be replaced. Decisions should be made based on factors such as historical significance, architectural uniqueness, and potential for adaptive reuse. Integrating old and new architecture in urban planning can create visually appealing and functional environments. Additionally, community input and expert assessment should guide which structures to preserve, ensuring both cultural value and practicality are considered.
In conclusion, while modern development is necessary for urban growth, preserving historical buildings is equally important for maintaining cultural heritage. A thoughtful, case-by-case approach that blends preservation with progress allows cities to honour their past while building a better future.
Lexical Resources
| Word | Synonyms | Antonyms |
| Demolish | Destroy, knock down, dismantle | Build, construct, erect |
| Preserve | Protect, conserve, maintain | Destroy, neglect, abandon |
| Heritage | Legacy, inheritance, tradition | Innovation, novelty |
| Restoration | Renovation, refurbishment, repair | Neglect, decay, abandonment |
| Urbanisation | City growth, metropolitan expansion | Ruralisation, depopulation |
| Adaptive reuse | Repurposing, recycling | Demolition, disposal |
| Cultural identity | Tradition, character, uniqueness | Uniformity, loss |
| Infrastructure | Facilities, framework, network | Nature, ruins, disorder |
| Sustainable | Eco-friendly, renewable | Unsustainable, harmful |
| Maintenance | Upkeep, care | Neglect, disregard |
Word Meaning
| Word | Meaning |
| Complex | Made of many parts, complicated |
| Efficient | Working well without wasting resources |
| Iconic | Well-known and representative of something |
| Costly | Expensive |
| Identity | The qualities that make something unique |
| Obsolete | No longer useful or in use |
| Valuable | Important or worth a lot |
| Neglect | Fail to care for or look after |
| Renovate | To repair or improve something |
| Conserve | To protect something from harm or loss |
Get the latest updates on IELTS exams here:
Sample Structure 2: Supporting the Preservation of Historical Building
Introduction
- Introduce the topic as a debate with two contrasting views
- Briefly state both perspectives.
- Clearly state your own opinion or thesis.
First Body Paragraph: Supporting One Side
- Explain the main reasons supporting one perspective (Example: Reservation).
- Provide examples or explanations (such as cultural, educational, or economic benefits).
Second Body Paragraph: Supporting the Opposite Side
- Present the main reasons supporting the opposing viewpoint (Examples: Demolition for development).
- Include supporting details (Example: Such as safety, cost, or urban needs).
Third Body Paragraph: Your Opinion or Point of View
- Clearly state your own stance on the issue.
- Justify your view with logical reasons and, if possible, suggest a balanced or practical solution.
Conclusion
- Summarise the main points of the arguments.
- Restate your opinion and emphasise the importance of making thoughtful, balanced decisions.
Sample Essay
Some people believe that historical buildings should be preserved due to their cultural significance, while others argue that demolishing them is necessary to accommodate urban growth and modern infrastructure. Although there are strong reasons to protect heritage structures, I believe that, in many situations, removing old buildings is a more practical and beneficial choice for society.
On the one hand, advocates of historical buildings emphasise the cultural, educational, and economic value of historical buildings. These structures often serve as visible links to a nation’s heritage, showcasing the unique architecture, craftsmanship, and societal values of earlier eras. Iconic landmarks such as the Taj Mahal or the Colosseum not only attract millions of tourists but also generate revenue and promote cultural understanding. Additionally, these buildings provide educational opportunities, allowing people to connect with their history in a meaningful way. For these reasons, many people argue that maintaining historical sites is essential to preserving cultural identity for future generations.
On the other hand, critics of heritage conservation point out that many old buildings no longer meet modern standards for safety, accessibility, or energy efficiency. Renovating such structures can be extremely costly, and these funds might be more effectively used to support essential public services such as healthcare, education, and transport. Moreover, as urban populations grow, cities face increasing pressure to expand and modernise. Replacing outdated buildings with newer, more functional designs allows for better land use, improved infrastructure, and sustainable development. In this way, urban progress can directly enhance the quality of life for residents.
In my view, while preserving a limited number of historically significant buildings is important, cities must prioritise practicality and long-term needs. Documenting architectural heritage through museums, photographs, or digital archives can help honour the past without hindering future development. Modern buildings are often more environmentally friendly, safer, and better suited to contemporary lifestyles. Therefore, selectively replacing old structures can help create more efficient and liveable urban environments.
To conclude, historical buildings undoubtedly carry cultural and educational value. However, in the context of modern urban challenges, the need for updated infrastructure and improved living conditions often outweighs the benefits of preservation. Striking a thoughtful balance between respecting history and embracing progress is essential for sustainable and inclusive urban growth.
Lexical Resources
| Word | Synonyms | Antonyms |
| Outdated | Obsolete, old-fashioned, archaic | Modern, current, up-to-date |
| Practical | Functional, useful, effective | Impractical, useless, faulty |
| Regulation | Rule, law, standard | Violation, breach |
| Expansion | Growth, development, enlargement | Reduction, contraction |
| Efficient | Productive, capable, optimised | Inefficient, wasteful |
| Renovation | Restoration, remodelling, renewal | Decay, deterioration |
| Visual record | Physical documentation, evidence | Invisibility, ignorance |
| Instill | Introduce, implant, promote | Remove, eliminate |
| Cost-effective | Economical, affordable, efficient | Costly, expensive |
| Environmentally friendly | Eco-conscious, sustainable | Harmful, polluting |
Word Meaning
| Word | Meaning |
| Archaic | Very old and no longer useful or relevant |
| Violation | Breaking a rule or law |
| Urban | Related to a city |
| Instill | Gradually put an idea or feeling into someone |
| Obsolete | Out of date, not used anymore |
| Conserve | To protect from loss or harm |
| Heritage | Cultural or historical background |
| Deterioration | Process of becoming worse |
| Functional | Able to work or serve a purpose |
| Breach | Failure to observe a law or agreement |
Sample Structure 3: Against the Preservation of Historical Buildings
Introduction
- Introduce the debate about historical buildings: preservation vs. demolition.
- Briefly mention both sides: preservation for cultural and educational reasons vs. demolition for urban growth and safety.
- State your opinion clearly: selective preservation and demolition based on practicality is the preferred approach.
First Body Paragraph: Arguments for Preservation (Opposing View)
- Present reasons why some support preserving historical buildings (example, cultural heritage, tourism, educational value).
- Provide examples such as heritage sites attracting visitors or teaching architectural history.
- Acknowledge the significance of this viewpoint, showing respect for the opposing argument.
Second Body Paragraph: Arguments Against Preservation (Your View)
- Present reasons for demolishing historical buildings (example, safety issues, high maintenance costs, limited urban space).
- Include supporting details such as financial burden, obsolete structures, or modern infrastructure requirements.
- Highlight the practical benefits of demolition, like efficient land use and safer, functional urban development.
Third Body Paragraph: Your Opinion or Point of View
- Clearly state your stance against blanket preservation.
- Justify your view: only preserve buildings with historical, cultural, or architectural importance.
- Suggest alternatives such as digital documentation, adaptive reuse, or partial façade retention.
- Emphasise efficiency, modernisation, and sustainable urban planning.
Conclusion
- Summarise arguments for both sides.
- Restate your opinion that selective demolition with targeted preservation is more practical.
- Highlight the importance of thoughtful, case-by-case decision-making for balanced urban growth.
Sample Essay
The debate over whether historical buildings should be preserved or demolished has long divided public opinion. Some argue that conserving heritage structures is crucial for cultural identity, education, and tourism, while others contend that demolition is necessary to accommodate urban growth, safety, and modern infrastructure. In my view, a selective approach, preserving only the most significant buildings while allowing practical demolition, is the most effective and balanced solution.
Advocates of preservation emphasise the cultural, educational, and aesthetic value of historical buildings. Such structures serve as tangible reminders of a community’s past, reflecting architectural styles and craftsmanship that cannot be replicated. Additionally, heritage sites attract tourism, contributing to the local economy and providing learning opportunities for students and researchers. From this perspective, preserving historical buildings ensures that cultural identity is passed down to future generations and supports economic growth through heritage-based tourism. While these points are valid and important, they do not fully address practical urban demands.
On the other hand, opponents of blanket preservation argue that many old buildings are unsafe, costly, or inefficient. Numerous heritage structures fail to meet modern safety or environmental standards, and maintaining them often requires substantial financial resources. Cities face growing populations, limited space, and increasing demand for functional infrastructure. Demolishing outdated buildings allows urban planners to optimise land use, create efficient public facilities, and develop housing and commercial spaces that better serve contemporary needs. In this sense, demolition can be a necessary and pragmatic choice for sustainable city growth.
In my opinion, while a few historically significant buildings deserve preservation, most outdated or unsafe structures should be demolished to make way for modern development. A balanced approach is possible through selective conservation, adaptive reuse, or digital archiving, ensuring that cultural memory is maintained without compromising urban efficiency. This strategy allows cities to modernise infrastructure, improve safety, and optimise resources while still honouring their heritage in a meaningful way.
In conclusion, historical buildings carry cultural and educational importance, but practical considerations such as safety, cost, and urban needs often outweigh the benefits of universal preservation. By adopting a selective and thoughtful approach, cities can balance heritage conservation with progress, ensuring sustainable growth while preserving key elements of their cultural identity.
| Word | Synonyms | Antonyms |
| Preservation | Conservation, protection, maintenance | Demolition, destruction, neglect |
| Demolition | Destruction, tearing down, dismantling | Construction, building, restoration |
| Heritage | Legacy, tradition, inheritance | Modernity, novelty, innovation |
| Adaptive reuse | Repurposing, reconfiguration, renovation | Demolition, neglect, disposal |
| Obsolete | Outdated, antiquated, old-fashioned | Modern, current, up-to-date |
| Pragmatic | Practical, realistic, sensible | Impractical, idealistic, theoretical |
| Infrastructure | Facilities, framework, foundation | Chaos, disorganisation, neglect |
| Sustainable | Eco-friendly, renewable, viable | Unsustainable, wasteful, harmful |
| Efficiency | Effectiveness, productivity, competence | Inefficiency, wastefulness, incompetence |
| Cultural identity | Tradition, character, uniqueness | Uniformity, loss, conformity |
| Obsolete | Outdated, antiquated, old-fashioned | Modern, current, up-to-date |
| Renovate | Restore, refurbish, repair | Neglect, destroy, abandon |
| Urban planning | City design, municipal development | Rural neglect, disorganisation |
| Tourism | Travel, sightseeing, hospitality | Isolation, stagnation |
| Financial investment | Funding, capital allocation, expenditure | Divestment, withdrawal, loss |
| Word | Meaning |
| Preservation | The act of keeping something safe from harm or decay |
| Demolition | The act of deliberately destroying a building or structure |
| Heritage | Cultural or historical traditions and artifacts passed down from previous generations |
| Adaptive reuse | The process of using old structures for new purposes while retaining some original features |
| Obsolete | No longer in use or useful due to age or advancement |
| Pragmatic | Dealing with situations in a sensible and effective way based on practical considerations |
| Infrastructure | Cultural or historical traditions and artefacts passed down from previous generations |
| Sustainable | Capable of being maintained over the long term without depleting resources |
| Efficiency | The ability to accomplish something with minimum wasted effort or resources |
| Cultural identity | The characteristics, values, and traditions that distinguish a community or society |
| Renovate | To repair or improve a building to make it more functional or attractive |
| Urban planning | The planning and design of urban spaces for functionality, safety, and growth |
| Tourism | The business or activity of providing services and attractions for travelers and visitors |
| Financial investment | Money spent or allocated to achieve long-term benefits or returns |
In conclusion, although demolishing historical buildings may provide space for development and modernisation, the cultural, educational, and aesthetic value these structures offer cannot be overlooked. Preserving them ensures that future generations remain connected to their heritage while benefiting from the economic and social advantages they provide. A balanced approach that combines thoughtful development with historical conservation is the most beneficial path forward.
Explore Some More Interesting Topics For IELTS Writing Task 2
FAQs
Some people think demolishing historical buildings allows space for modern development, economic growth, and improved infrastructure, which they believe are more practical for growing urban populations and technological advancement.
Others believe historical buildings preserve cultural identity, architectural heritage, and national pride. They argue these structures provide educational value and connect future generations to their country’s historical roots.
A balanced essay discusses both sides fairly, mentioning the benefits of modernisation as well as the importance of cultural preservation, before stating your own opinion supported with logical reasoning.
Any opinion is acceptable if well-supported. However, strong arguments with clear examples, logical reasoning, and consistent positioning throughout the essay help achieve a higher band score.
Yes, combining both ideas is effective. You can argue that cities should preserve significant historical buildings while allowing modernisation in less culturally valuable areas, maintaining balance and progress.
We hope this blog on preparing for the IELTS Writing Task 1 and IELTS Writing Task 2 was helpful and gave you useful tips to improve your writing skills. You can also follow the IELTS Preparation page of Leverage Edu for more exciting and informative blogs on mastering the IELTS exam.
60,000+ students trusted us with their dreams. Take the first step today!