In recent years, in plenty of countries, architects have plan to group facilities and building them in certain places. This essay believes that the upsides of this statement outweigh the downsides.
Firstly, if the buildings such as schools, housing, offices, and shops were constructed in different parts of a city, commuting would be easier. In other words, people would have certain routes that they use every day. It can be considered beneficial for fighting against the climate issues. People have tent to use their private vehicles in recent years, and if several coworkers used the same car, the carbon emission would decrease significantly. Furthermore, when people go to shopping they spent hours to go various shops to buy all their needs. For example, if a person want to do his or her grocery shopping and buy new clothes, in this situation he or she do not need to go different places.
On the other hand, grouping the buildings might damage the architectural beauty of the country. Although it could be time-saving, the city may seem dull. Going the same routs will bore the citizens because people are used to experience differences in their lives. Every city has its own beauty, and if all countries looked identical, tourists would be unwilling to travel. Therefore, this is a great threat for the tourism of the city. For instance, travelers pay large amount of money to go a different country and see new places, whereas if they did not saw any difference in the place they been, they would not willing to go to this place again.
In conclusion, planning cities according to a plan could be advantageous for the commuting between home and school or work and doing shopping; nevertheless, this might be result losing the architectural features of the cities. Similarly, the tourism might decline.