'valuable and irrecoverable'; Should a city preserve its old buildings?

Hello everyone, I'm practicing my writing skills. I hope that you can give me some suggestions or corrections! Thank you.

Topic:
Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

Essay:

Having old and historic buildings in a city has lead to a debate. Some people think it wasteful to maintain their old, historic building while other people want to preserve them because they are valuable and irrecoverable. In my opinion, it is worthwhile to replace the old, historic buildings with modern ones. The reason is that old buildings not only take too much money to maintain but also occupy the available spaces in a city.

First, maintaining the old, historic buildings is a money-consuming task. For one thing, the government has to spend much money on hiring guards to protect the old buildings which are usually under danger situation. Thieves or hoboes can easily come into the buildings and cause any destruction because there are only few and even no people living in them. For another, maintaining the old, historic buildings also costs a lot. To keep the fragile buildings been in a good condition, the government has to hire experts and buy materials to maintain the old buildings. However, such a policy may account for certain proportion of the government's budget and even leads to a financial deficiency in the long run.

Second, the old, historic buildings occupy spaces that are available for modern buildings. In general, the old buildings have few floors and old-fashioned equipments. The modern buildings, on the other hand, usually have more floors such as ten or above. The additional floors enable more people to live in and provide more spaces for people to plan and develop. What's more, the modern buildings equipped with modern facilities that make life easier and more comfortable. Classic examples include electricity and water supply, internet access and air-conditioner.

To sum up, I think that it is a good idea for a city to replace the old, historic buildings with modern ones because it can save a lot of government money, allow more residents to live in and raise people's living conditions.

maintain their old,and historic building
To keep the fragile buildings been in a good condition

Some people think it wasteful to maintain their old, historic buildings, while other people want to preserve them because they are valuable and irrecoverable. ---I made one small change. Can you find it? :-)

...are usually under dangerous circumstances.

Second, the old, historic buildings occupy spaces that would otherwise be available for modern buildings. ----This sentence was not incorrect, but I just wanted to make it a little better.

The additional floors enable more people to live in the buildings and provide more spaces for people to plan and develop.

What's more, the modern buildings are equipped with modern facilities that make life easier and more comfortable. ----GREAT sentence! But I had to add one word.

To sum up, I think that it is a good idea for a city to replace the old, historic buildings with modern ones because it can save a lot of government money, allow more residents to live in the buildings, and raise people's living conditions.

:-)

Thank you for your help. But I feel a little confused.
In my grammer textbook, the author gives the following examples:
A tall and handsome boy. (X)
A tall, handsome boy (O)
The boy is tall and handsome (O)

I want to know why "maintain their old, historic buliding " is worng.
Thanks.

It's not wrong. She just suggested a different way to do it.

:-)

First, maintaining the old, historic buildings is a money-consuming task. First, maintaining the old, historic buildings needs money-consuming task. İ think