It is undeniable that the design and construction of new houses remains a contentious issue. While some individuals advocate for the freedom to construct residences in diverse styles, eschewing conformity to the traditional architectural styles of their localities, I subscribe to the opinion that a host of downsides of this problem are of greater significance.
On the one hand, allowing freedom in architectural design can positively contribute to the variety and character of a community. To commence with, individuals who prioritize sustainability may choose to construct their homes using eco-friendly materials and innovative designs that emphasize energy efficiency. Therefore, this not only enhances the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood but also mitigates environmental degradation. Additionally, for those with financial constraints, building homes tailored to personal preferences may enable them to allocate resources more effectively, thus alleviating financial burdens and promoting long-term financial stability.
On the other hand, I would claim that new houses should be constructed with the same design in terms of architecture. Firstly, it can bring the area a sense of uniformity and maintain traditional values, which creates economic development opportunities for localities. Most old buildings in the city center have their historical significance and give a strong sense of identity to that area. Indubitably, those buildings provide a deep connection between the time of our ancestors and the current life. Secondly, from an architectural perspective, the housing placement of modern and traditional dwellings is an eyesore. Indubitably, as high-tech buildings grow like mushrooms, somewhere, there are old, primitive houses crowded together right in the urban center, which seems impossible to blend.
In conclusion, though it may be more costly, the traditional architecture of localities should be respected by modern housing developments.