There are those who have the believe the authorities should retain control and oversight over the planning process associated with constructing any new building in large metropolises while the alternative stance is that those who fund the projects should have free reign over the blueprints. This essay discusses both sides of this contentious argument and then I will give my own perspective which is that the authorities must retain control of the process.
Many people argue that companies building projects should be free to design buildings as they wish. One of the reasons for this is that they often have the expertise to design buildings well. For instance, they often employee leading architects to design stylish buildings for them. Another reason is to allow buildings in an area to have a distinctive flavour and to not be constrained by governmental regulations that may result in a cookie-cutter approach to building. An example of this style of building can be found in Beijing where whole suburbs look identical.
Others argue that governments should safeguard the general public’s interests and regulate the design of buildings accordingly. More often than not, they have records of areas affected by disasters throughout history and will establish design standards that can ensure buildings can withstand just about every anticipated natural disaster such as earthquakes and floods. In addition, if governments review the decisions about a building’s design, the whole town planning and a more holistic approach can be considered as part of the decision. More specifically they consider how the design of a particular building fits in with the other buildings and facilities in an area.
In conclusion, I believe both sides of the argument have their merits. However, on balance I believe that the government’s involvement is essential; as I feel it will ensure safety issues are not being violated and whole cities have some sort of overall plan in their design.