There has been discussion whether to make it compulsory to construct buildings in the old ways or optional for people to go to the style of their own choice. Although it is valid for other people to support the second idea, I have reasons to stand on the first one.
On one hand, it is understandable why a school of thoughts lean toward the idea that freedom in constructing can afford more advantages for these reasons. In fact, structures are being forced to change by the development of technology. More and more new facilities that cannot be installed in old style buildings are on their way to become a must in every household such as green roofs or solar panels. Additionally, the architectural fashion of a house can reflect its owner’s personality and culture which cannot be the same as other people’s. Forcing anyone or any structure to follow an only model is unreasonable and disrespectful to their freedom.
On the other hand, I believe that uniformity of houses can bring us a range of benefits. Firstly, unification in design can be an optimal way to contribute to tourism as it is often considered as a unique feature of the area. The Forbidden City is a great example of how a special only style of construction can preserve culture and make huge profit from tourism. Moreover, constructing buildings in one way only can benefit emergency services such as fire-fighting or ambulances since the structures in the local area are all the same. In addition, a style unity can also help construct electricity and water systems easier which can increase the effectiveness in using resources.
In conclusion, the idea that freedom in constructing can have a positive impact is valid. I personal opine that they are eclipsed by more significant benefit that can be offered by the design unity.