It is more important for a building to serve its purposes than to look beautiful. Architects do not need to worry about whether it is a real work of art. Do you agree or disagree?

Buildings

serve a plethora of functions in our cities, from homes to stores, to pieces of art. Some may argue that if the basic functionality of the structure is met

then

there is no reason for the architect to focus on its looks. I believe that, if the main goal of service to the highest standards is achieved, there should always be room for artistic expression. On the one hand, accommodation is one of the basic, mandatory needs of our lives, and meeting it for all people should be a priority in our society. With urban areas on the verge of saturation, there is an urgent need for more available housing. That's why building companies should prioritize speeding up their process. To achieve that, they might have to cut down on plans on how the building should look in the end, and focus on making functional homes, fast. With more options being offered to the public, the hectic process of finding a new home, especially

while

relying on real estate companies, could be minimized.

On the other hand

, architecture is considered to be one of the arts with great impact.

Buildings

are what make up the face and vibe of a city, and what would a centre of culture be without it looking beautiful? With everyday life being more and more restless, the ride to your job, or your evening stroll should be as enjoyable as it gets, with the scenery of

buildings

playing a major role in city centres.

To conclude

, an architect should have creative freedom over their creations,

while

maintaining a relatively realistic goal in mind; to give people a place to stay. My opinion is that big

buildings

that serve the whole of society are to be the main focus of architecture as an art form, and basic housing is maintained to a more practical level of beauty.