It is more important for a building to be functional than beautiful. Architects should not worry about designing buildings as works of art. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Some

people

argue that establishments should be more beautiful than functional.

However

, my view of

this

issue is that buildings should be constructed functionally, especially, on the point of safety

first,

and

then

need to be beautiful for

people

’s mental as well.

To begin

with, architects should consider what a building’s function is. Basically, a building has a function that

people

enter and stay there. That’s why its safety should be the highest priority. If it has a problem related to durability, even if it is really attractive, it is useless.

For example

, in Korea, there was a big issue about an apartment. The apartment didn’t have core structures at underground parking lots so the whole building was found to be unstable. Many

people

who planned to move into it were concerned about

this

establishment and complained about the company that built it.

Nevertheless

, I think that the functional aspect of buildings is more important than the beauty of those, but those designs could play a critical role as well. Wonderful buildings make

people

, who use or just pass by them, feel touched or

recharge

Wrong verb form

recharged

show examples

. They can let workers or residents take a break

as well as

pedestrians change their feelings.

For instance

, AMOREPACIFIC, a Korean cosmetic company, was built with great gardens on every floor. It has, definitely, offered rest places to the employees who work for a long time and it has helped them to reduce their stress.

To sum up

, I firmly believe that it is the most important for a building to be safe

while

I partly agree that it needs to be beautiful at the same time.