Some feel that cities shold be designed to be beautiful while others feel their functionality is more important. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Many people support the picturesque design of capitals, whilst others contend that cities should focus on their benefits to the citizen. Even though these arguments might be correct equally, I firmly believe that if the districts are crafted inspired by the general populace's needs, the cities will be considered beautiful eventually. On the one hand, the benefit of having urban planning that treats the visitors exquisitely will support the government financially. More and more people are interested to experience the beauty of the

city

.

Additionally

, the new tourist hot spots will surge the domestic economy for the locals. They can possibly catch the opportunity by selling local goods, opening a guest house, or providing tour groups.

Thus

, the domestic economy will be improving as the

city

becomes largely popular as a new destination among foreigners or locals from other places.

On the other hand

, the government should put their citizenry

first

over-tourism when creating the

city

's grand sites. In urban planning, community residences need to be on top focus followed up with the access to educational institutions, mass transport, health centres, main roads and alleys, and other minor yet core facilities in society

such

as community houses for religious groups and blocks for tourist attractions. One of the best practices in

city

planning in Singapore. The compact and dense Singapore is well-designed and prioritises its population yet pulls foreigners' attention to visit the megapolitan.

This

country as well as the

city

balances the people's core necessities while keeping obtaining many foreign guests. To conclude, both statements are considerably correct yet the

city

outlook which benefits the citizen should be placed on top priority.