Some people suggest that modern built houses should follow the style of old houses in local areas, while others believe that people should be free to build homes of their own style. From my perspective, the best way to find solution is to combine these two approach which can create cities that are both culturally rich and modern.
Opponents believe that people should have the freedom to design houses according to the personal preferences. Housing is a form of self-expression, and modern architectural styles often focus on comfort, energy efficiency, and new technologies. For example, contemporary built may include solar panels, large window, or eco-friendly materials that are not typical of old buildings. Meanwhile, forcing homeowners to copy traditional design could limit innovation and make construction more expensive. However, trendy architecture often responds more quickly to contemporary crises. Net zero buildings, adaptive facades, or experimental co-living hubs are rarely born from a purely classical mindset. They demand a designer who is tuned into what the world needs now.
On the other hand, supporters traditional architecture argue that new houses should match the existing style of older building. Furthermore, this approach helps preserve the historical and cultural identity of a place. Architecture relies less on decorative trends and more on universal principles: harmony, balance, light, and the honest expression of materials. If modern building are constructed without considering local traditions, the area may lose its unique character and become visually unattractive.
In conclusion, a balance approach is the most effective solution. While it is important to respect local architectural traditions, people should not be completely restricted in their choices. Governments could set basic guideline to ensure new buildings fit the general character of an area, while still allowing flexibility design. This would protect cultural heritage without preventing progress.