Kindly assess my writing. Thankyou

[Dr.Khurram]

Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?
What is your view point on this issue?

In many metropolitan cities around the globe, there is a common practice of demolishing old buildings of historical significance and replacing them with high-rise multi-story skyscrapers. Many commentators are of the view that these old historical sites should be preserved, however few analysts defend the idea that they should be destroyed so that the new buildings can be constructed. In my opinion, these historical buildings are our national heritage and they should be preserved.

There are numerous ways in which these old colossal buildings can be used, so that they can act as a source of revenue, especially for under-developed countries. Firstly, these old historical sites act as tourist attraction and generate a large amount of money. For instance, Taj Mahal in India attracts tourists from around the globe and they appreciate the beauty of this spectacular structure after visiting it. Moreover, these sites unquestionably act as source of income to people belonging from different professions, especially Tourist guides.
It is also noteworthy that these old buildings if properly furnished can be used as a dwelling for many people who couldn’t afford to buy their own house, this will furthermore save them from taking out mortgage or to pay a rent. Furthermore, many of these sites have religious significance and it is totally imprudent to demolish them, as doing so will hurt the sentiments of the people.
To recapitulate, in the light of aforementioned arguments, I strongly agree with the notion that these historical structures should be preserved.

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hello!

Overall, a good essay. Vocabulary and grammar are both good. There are mistakes with grammar, but these are minor and do not affect meaning.

I like your points, but I'd suggest that such historical buildings are VERY unlikely to be used to house poor people. (They, perhaps, should be used for this purpose, but ...) However, you did write 'can', so the point remains valid.

All the best,
David

[Dr.Khurram]

Thank you so much David. You are doing such a wonderful job.

[Flick]

Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings?
What is your view point on this issue?

In many metropolitan cities around the globe, there is a common practice of demolishing old buildings of historical significance and replacing them with high-rise, multi-story skyscrapers. Many commentators are of the view that these old historical sites should be preserved. However, a few analysts defend the idea that they should be destroyed so that the new buildings can be constructed. In my opinion, these historical buildings are our national heritage and they should be preserved.

There are numerous ways in which these old, colossal buildings can be used so that they can act as a source of revenue, especially for under-developed countries. Firstly, these old historical sites act as tourist attractions and generate a large amount of money. For instance, the Taj Mahal in India attracts tourists from around the globe and they appreciate the beauty of this spectacular structure after visiting it. Moreover, these sites unquestionably act as source of income for people of various professions, especially tourist guides.

It is also noteworthy that these old buildings, if properly furnished, can be used as a dwelling for many people who can't afford to buy their own house. This will save them from taking out a mortgage or to pay rent. Furthermore, many of these sites have religious significance and it is totally imprudent to demolish them, as doing so will hurt the sentiments of the people.

To recapitulate, in light of the aforementioned arguments, I strongly agree with the notion that these historical structures should be preserved.