There is little control over the design and construction of new homes and office buildings, and people can build in whatever style they like. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

It is true that limited

regulation

allows people to design their houses and

office

buildings freely on

its

Change the pronoun

their

show examples

forms.

Although

some benefits of

this

can be seen, I am the opinion of that drawbacks exceed. One of the considerable benefits of having slight restrictions on construction of houses and

office

buildings is that it can be a famous landmark. Since fewer restrictions make it possible to create a unique appearance by adding colours and unfamiliar shapes, the uniqueness gathers people’s attention and will be well-known. Taking Casa Milà as an example, the originality of the house fascinate people all over the world and registered as a World Heritage Site. Designing houses and

office

buildings freely leads to making new famous architectures so loose

regulation

on its forms seems to be advantages.

Nevertheless

, I believe that drawbacks of limited

regulation

on houses and buildings are greater than its benefits because it can trigger spoiling the beauty of a town scenery. Without strict restrictions on

architecture

styles, it is hard to protect the beautiful view of a city, which usually involves consistency in appearance.

For example

, Kyoto sets a limit on

architecture

,

such

as colours and heights. Due to the strict restrictions, new houses and

office

buildings match the traditional townscape. Lax

regulation

possibly damages the beautiful scenery of a city that comes from the uniformity of buildings;

therefore

, the negativity of less

regulation

on design and construction new

architecture

prevails. To sum up, slight

regulation

on

architecture

allows freely building and can be beneficial.

However

, I believe that drawbacks are superior to their benefits because loose restrictions on building styles hinder the unified beauty of a city.