Band 8 model answer
A model answer written to illustrate a Band 8 response to this question, with the rubric breakdown and what carries it. Written by us as a teaching example, not a verified exam script.
“Some say historic buildings should be preserved at all costs; others argue cities need modern development. Discuss both views.”8
Overall
8
Task response
8
Coherence & cohesion
8
Lexical resource
8
Grammar
As cities expand and populations grow, tensions between preserving historic architecture and meeting modern urban needs have become a defining challenge for planners worldwide. Some insist that heritage buildings must be protected at any cost, while others argue that cities must evolve and that outdated structures should give way to development. My own view is that both goals can and must be pursued together.
The preservation argument rests on strong cultural and economic foundations. Historic buildings are physical archives of a society's past, embodying craftsmanship, artistic values, and collective memory that no modern replica can authentically reproduce. The loss of a medieval cathedral or an early-industrial warehouse district is irreversible in a way that the demolition of a contemporary office block is not. Economically, heritage tourism generates substantial revenue: visitors to cities such as Rome, Prague, and Kyoto are drawn primarily by historic streetscapes rather than modern glass towers.
Those who favour development, however, point to equally pressing realities. Rapidly growing cities face acute housing shortages, crumbling transport infrastructure, and the need for energy-efficient commercial spaces. Preserving every older building, regardless of its condition or significance, can create a kind of architectural museum that inhibits the organic renewal cities require. Some historic districts have become gentrified tourist enclaves that exclude the very communities whose history they ostensibly celebrate.
The resolution lies in careful, evidence-based heritage assessment that distinguishes genuinely irreplaceable buildings from those of lesser significance, combined with adaptive reuse, converting historic shells for contemporary purposes, wherever feasible.
In conclusion, preserving historic buildings and enabling modern development are not mutually exclusive. Thoughtful urban planning that identifies which buildings genuinely merit protection allows cities to honour their past while meeting the needs of future residents.
- •Concrete place-names (Rome, Prague, Kyoto) anchor the tourism argument without resorting to invented statistics.
- •The adaptive reuse concept adds practical sophistication beyond the binary of 'demolish or preserve'.
- •The point about heritage districts excluding local communities is a nuanced and original observation.
- •Strong academic register maintained throughout with varied syntactic structures.
- •The development argument could engage more directly with a specific urban example to match the weight of the preservation examples.
Write your own. Get a real band read.
Reading a model answer only takes you so far. Write your own response to this question and we’ll grade it against the four official rubrics, the same way we scored this one.
Attempt this question