Given the exponential emergence of many metropolises present-day, the spectacle of high-rise infrastructures has ineluctably been the staple of the contemporary age. However, regulations are relatively lenient regarding the design and erection of such edifices, whereupon culminate in adverse repercussions. Yet, there emerges the notion that such governmental interference is laudable as people’s autonomy transcended the recognized demerits. In this essay, I will present some justifications for why such laid-back measures can represent an egregious pattern of development and clearly not redeem for its upshots.
First, governmental overwatch is absolutely essential to maintain the sustainability and long-term development of any metropolis. To commence with, due to economic and wherewithal constraints, architectures have an execrable proclivity to construct low, cost-effective buildings which has been ascribed to the proliferation of urban sprawl present-day. To elucidate, the unruly spread of buildings, along with their bad designs will ineluctably vitiate aesthetic aspects of many metropolises, increase commuting time, hence stretching the capability of public transport. Moreover, an urban development plan should be able to cater to the demands of an astronomical inflow of migrants, visitors, and denizens. Therefore, legal regulations are of sacrosanct importance to mitigate overpopulation and urbanization. Last, the erection of buildings oftentimes culminates in pollution and hobbles the harmonious flow of traffic. For example, the construction of commercial centers requires a colossal amount of paperwork, earmarked estates, and even geopolitical considerations which are only made possible by governmental powers. Furthermore, the construction of residential buildings can cause noise, and air pollution around their surroundings, particularly in noise-sensitive sections such as medical centers or educational. establishments. Ultimately, draconian measures from the government are a much-needed phase in the designing and construction of buildings as these vouch for the safety and sustainability of any urban region.
Second, autonomous freedom and liberties can yet transcend the egregious pitfalls stemming from irresponsible design and construction. The first reason being that governmental regulations indubitably have significant bearings on the public’s safety and standard of living. For example, draconian measures regarding drainage, ventilation, amenities, and fire prevention systems essentially bolster citizen’s happiness and provide prophylactic countermeasures to catastrophic happenings. Furthermore, the intervention of administrative bodies means that building gestation and construction dovetail with that of a pre-devised one. Additionally, the ready-made pretext of design freedom only represents short-lived benefits as its subsequent ramifications are yet to be resolved. For example. a paucity of regulation will ineluctably be a breeding ground for corruption, scandals, and cost overruns. These design-related liberties, without sufficient regulation, will always be pure heresy and the unnecessary squandering of public resources.
However, some people still argue that a state-controlled urban developmental plan would compromise innovation and freedom in architectural design. While designer’s freedom is somewhat recognizable, governments should monitor these liberties as they explicitly affect their citizens. Moreover, governmental involvement does not hamper architectural ingenuity but rather bolsters the process per se. Because regulation can ensure that designers only take calculated risks and innovation, thereby averting catastrophes. Furthermore, regulations can ensure the harmony of the environment, traffic and people’s comfort in a metropolis. To elucidate, in a stereotypically high-rise city like New York, there is still space for the therapeutic, tranquil benefits of the central parks or the immaculate outlay of Singapore – the cleanest city in the world. These examples clearly bear testaments to the importance of regulation in the construction and designing of any building.
In conclusion, while designers’ freedom can be recognized, I think that draconian measures are very necessary to counteract the destructive consequence of irresponsible designs. Therefore, the current lenient regulation in urban development is innately execrable and will never transcend its perceived demerits. Such lack of strict regulation now demands more scrutiny and actionable interventions.