We are living in an era where architectures are practically designing unbelievable designs, pushing the boundaries of design. A debate is sparked on the importance of designing, as some people give more paramount importance to practicality than static appearance. I partly agree with this statement, and this essay will prove my standpoint.
On one hand, practicality and effectiveness are far more important, as it leads to cost-effective solutions as it is designed focused on working effectively. It may support less space, minimum lighting, and minimum movements. These designs are cost-effective as well as timesaving. For an instance a room can be designed with minimum spacing required for functions at minimum cost. Further as designs are made for practicality, satisfaction is increased. Additionally, as designs built for practicality, it leads to long-term sustainability as they are heavily built for the functions to run without renovations for over extended periods
On the other hand, this may reduce cultural and symbolic values in design. When design is solely focused on functional attributes, cultural and symbolic values can be diminished. For example, there was a statue of Rama, in households’ gates in Anuradhapura but it was diminished with time when different types of gates with punctual designs came into use. Further creating aesthetic designs push the barriers of creativity and innovation. Architectures are pushing themselves to innovative ideas that are practical, but creativity and innovation may be reduced if architectures primarily design based on practicality.
In summary, there are both advantages and disadvantages to designing for functionality rather than considering aesthetic appearances. This may lead to several advantages, such as cost-effectiveness and improved satisfaction, as well as disadvantages, such as a reduction in symbolic values and creativity. Therefore, it is better to have a balance between both functionality and aesthetics when designing.