It is true that contemporary structures can impact on cities and towns visually. Therefore, the government should obligate to build buildings which can fallow traditional styles to continue cultural identity. While some argue that keeping traditions in buildings is significant, balanced approach would be preferable.
On the one hand, traditional buildings can reflect the region’s unique history, values and aesthetic sensibilities. Mondating their preservation helps foster a sense of cultural continuity. For example, In Uzbekistan, most renowned historical cities, including Samarkand, Bukhara and Khiva, all represent history and traditional designs in architecture. Undeniable, the these structures have stood the cities out and have made them extraordinary tourist destinations. If the buildings are built in modern styles, these changes may affect negatively.
In contrast, strictly requiring all new buildings to follow traditional styles may hinder innovation and functuality. Modern artichecture often incorporates environmentally friendly materials, energy efficiency which align with modern world. In rapidly urbanizing regions, the priority is often to build affordable and functional housing which is not involved in older architectural methods. Moreover, diversity in architectural styles can definetely enhance the visual appeal and dynamism of a city. For these reasons, government can play a constructive role by providing guidelines that encourage harmony between modern and traditional designs without enforcing rigid rules.
In conclusion, it seems to me that while protecting cultural identity through architecture is essential, requiring all new buildings to be traditional styles neither practical or desirable.