In some cities, there are few controls on the design and construction of homes and other buildings, and owners can decide on the style of their houses. Do the advantages of this outweigh the drawbacks?

Nowadays, more and more individuals and companies demand to have a complete control over the design of their residential properties without any interference from the authority. While this development serves buildings’ owners greatly, there are several demerits which need to be considered. To begin with, lesser control on the buildings’ style in large cities indeed has some benefits. With the freedom to build personal architectures, individuals are enabled to use their creativity and imagination to create unique and modernized houses which make the cities look incredibly attractive to citizens and tourists. For example, a city with different types of houses and office buildings always draws more attention than places that have the same design for all architectures. Additionally, giving residents the power to decide their houses’ style will save a substantial amount of the governments’ revenue. Because people now pay individually for the architects, the authority is released from the budget burden. Unfortunately, despite the aforementioned benefits, there are massive setbacks of such a development. Firstly, unlike the past when people were forced to apply the same buildings’ design, the residential area of cities will not maintain a standardization of houses in the future because each property now has a different style. This makes the area unappealing to the citizens who are seeking for a settling place. Secondly, without any strict control on the construction, there will always a risk of damaging the surrounding architectures. For instance, a building may collapse and cause severe consequence if the construction is not carefully supervised by the authority. In conclusion, while letting people decide style of their own architectures bring several advantages, its drawbacks are far more unfavorable to the cities.