There are fewer controls over the designs and construction of home and office buildings. So, people can build them however they like. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The topic on whether the government should have control over the architectural designs of the houses and buildings made by the public has always been argued. In my own perspectives, I support the notion of giving freedom to the public in choosing their designs except in some heritage areas. On the one hand, the practice of making the similar kind of buildings will show uniformity, but it will turn out to be boring. To elaborate, some exquisitely designed buildings attract people’s appreciation and serve as a city landmark.

Additionally

Linking Words

,

this

Linking Words

will raise the aesthetic value of the city. In fact, the cities with beautiful and distinctive architectural feature houses will promote tourism and

thus

Linking Words

, boost the nation’s economy by generating the revenues.

On the other hand

Linking Words

, sometimes giving all the liberation in selecting the designs can result in damage to the region’s culture and heritage.

In addition

Linking Words

to it, the influential people spend thrifty amount on building their huge houses in order to showcase their financial status, and

consequently

Linking Words

giving pressure to the neighbours to follow the same trend.

Moreover

Linking Words

, some break the established housing guidelines and encroach upon the other person’s property.

Hence

Linking Words

, under

such

Linking Words

circumstances, the government has set certain rules for any kind of constructions done in the area in terms of passing the architectural map before building any offices, shops, or houses. To recapitulate, I opine that regardless of few demerits of the symmetrical designs, people should be given an opportunity to have distinctive architectural featured buildings to promote the local region as visitor’s destination spot and raise the economic value of the area.