In recent years, there has been a growing debate over whether the design and construction of properties should be free to choose. While others believe that the government should monitor the appearance of buildings. In my opinion, although freedom for design may cause some advantages, such as enhance creativity and uniqueness of properties, its negative aspects are far more substantial. Uncontrolled appearance could be out of countries cultural context and therefore disrupt its identity.
On the one hand, when designers have an opportunity to decide on their own the project for a building, without any restrictions and rules, this results in an actually special and unique result. For example, in Barcelona, the government poses other the famous architecture to create several buildings, which were totally out of typical style as other building have. As a result, now a great number of tourists come to visit this city, exactly with the purpose of seeing this outstanding building.
On the other hand, this freedom can be extremely dangerous in terms of cultural identity of cities and practical usage for citizens. Firstly, in most of developed and developing countries, their cities have already some specific style of houses, which is connected to their historical background. That means, any other future buildings should have at least something in common with them, to save their streets appearance as a national heritage.
In conclusion, nowadays, a significant number of people has been stating that they need to have freedom in choosing the design of housing and office building, since it allows them to represent their creativeness and unique ideas. However, the disadvantages of this substantially outweigh, because their creativeness cannot be align with cities identity and can cause physical uncomfortableness for some people.