The focus when constructing a building has remained a contentious issue, eliciting polarizing perspectives. Some individuals firmly believe that practicality should be prioritized over exterior look. However, upon reflection, I assert that both criteria are equally important in this process.
Those who attach more importance to practicality may highlight reduced expenses as their core argument. Once functions of a construction are prioritized, its quality of infrastructure will be enhanced as well, making it less susceptible to time and weather. This may avoid potential infrastructural degradation such as malfunctioned ventilation systems or broken water pipes, thereby avoiding future hassle and prolonging the buildings’ longevity. Thus, expenditure will be saved in the long run because refurbishment and renovation are made unnecessary. As a result, by offering long-term financial benefits, paying more attention to functions will be a wiser choice than focusing on exterior design.
Nevertheless, proponents of visual appeal may emphasize its potential for monetization and economic benefits it confers on the local economy. Notably, tourists may be intrigued by visually stunning buildings. By attracting tourists, such structures may be commercialized, bringing income to the residents and sustaining the locals’ livelihoods. To exemplify, in London, Big Ben Tower, which showcases aesthetic design and impressive architectural style, is not only one of the top attractions among foreign tourists but also a large contributor to the city’s yearly income. Thus, the monetization of aesthetically appealing structures could drive economic invigoration in the local community.
In conclusion, although some people contend that functional utility deserves more attention than exterior design, I opine that both criteria should be equally emphasized in the construction process. While prioritizing functionality helps maximize land usage, aesthetic buildings may serve as tourist hubs, boosting the local economy.