phamleminh
Jan 3, 2019
Writing Feedback / Essay on Construction Regulation in Cities [2]
This is my new essay, please give me your comment if any. Thanks in advance!
In some cities, there are few controls on the design and construction of homes and other buildings, and owners can decide on the styles of their houses.
Do the advantages of this outweigh its drawbacks?
People's opinions differ as to whether urban buildings should be controlled in terms of design and architecture. While there are some benefits to unregulated construction in cities, I would argue that the advantages of this are outweighed by its disadvantages.
Firstly, some degree of control is necessary to ensure a harmonious urban landscape. If builders did not follow any guidelines, they could create homes that may look wonderful on their own but do not fit together. This will result in chaotic urban scenery, with every construction vying for attention but getting in each other's way. Therefore, it is important that some level of control be imposed on urban planning. Architects should follow certain criteria, while still having some room for creativity and originality. Some cities in the world have managed to achieve this. New York, for instance, has a harmonious combination of old housing and new buildings that look different but fit together as a whole.
Opponents of regulations on construction might argue that homeowners want to design their establishments according to their own purposes and financial capacity. Rich people, they claim, may want a luxury mansion with a wide range of facilities inside, whereas poorer inhabitants would only require, and be able to afford, a plain dwelling. Such a rationale has seen many cities, including my own - Hanoi, allow almost every style of construction, with advocates claiming that freedom of choice should be valued over aesthetics.
However, this 'freedom' argument is highly suspect. In reality, people of the same social status and level of wealth often live in the same neighbourhood, thus negating the possibility of inhabitants being forced to build homes that go beyond their means. Additionally, in most cases, regulations on homes would merely restrict the outer designs of buildings, leaving the interior to owners' discretion. Therefore, any unique, personal requirement can still be met without undermining the common landscape.
This is my new essay, please give me your comment if any. Thanks in advance!
In some cities, there are few controls on the design and construction of homes and other buildings, and owners can decide on the styles of their houses.
Do the advantages of this outweigh its drawbacks?
free choice of architecture
People's opinions differ as to whether urban buildings should be controlled in terms of design and architecture. While there are some benefits to unregulated construction in cities, I would argue that the advantages of this are outweighed by its disadvantages.
Firstly, some degree of control is necessary to ensure a harmonious urban landscape. If builders did not follow any guidelines, they could create homes that may look wonderful on their own but do not fit together. This will result in chaotic urban scenery, with every construction vying for attention but getting in each other's way. Therefore, it is important that some level of control be imposed on urban planning. Architects should follow certain criteria, while still having some room for creativity and originality. Some cities in the world have managed to achieve this. New York, for instance, has a harmonious combination of old housing and new buildings that look different but fit together as a whole.
Opponents of regulations on construction might argue that homeowners want to design their establishments according to their own purposes and financial capacity. Rich people, they claim, may want a luxury mansion with a wide range of facilities inside, whereas poorer inhabitants would only require, and be able to afford, a plain dwelling. Such a rationale has seen many cities, including my own - Hanoi, allow almost every style of construction, with advocates claiming that freedom of choice should be valued over aesthetics.
However, this 'freedom' argument is highly suspect. In reality, people of the same social status and level of wealth often live in the same neighbourhood, thus negating the possibility of inhabitants being forced to build homes that go beyond their means. Additionally, in most cases, regulations on homes would merely restrict the outer designs of buildings, leaving the interior to owners' discretion. Therefore, any unique, personal requirement can still be met without undermining the common landscape.
