It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects shouldn't worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree? v.5

Some people believe that a building should be more useful to its users, rather than just being beautiful, which is why they suggest that architects should not focus on making it aesthetically pleasing. This essay disagrees with this suggestion because attractive constructions have a lot to offer to the community. Firstly, this essay will outline how pretty buildings increase tourism, followed by how they are a blessing for the businesses in the vicinity. Artistic structures invites a lot of visitors. People like visiting such places because their intrinsic design is a sight for a sore eye. As people from all around the country and sometimes even from the foreign land visit these places, tourism industry get an exponential jump. For example, the John Hancock tower in Chicago and the Empire state building in New York are some of the prime spots visited by thousands of tourists every day. Moreover, these towers give a boost to local businesses like restaurants and bars nearby. As so many folks come over to view these, the shops in those areas get an increased foot fall. Consequently, it not only contributes to the profits that they earn, but also provide employment to many localities. For example, the street where The World Trade Center is situated in New York has seen a number of restaurants grow financially. In conclusion, although the usefulness of huge structures is unquestionably important, their artistic appeal can also not be discounted because they grow the tourism industry and local businesses around. Hence I disagree with the idea that the beauty of architectures is not essential for the constructors to focus on.