It is true in a lot of metropolises, people do not necessarily have to submit their design and construction plan to the local authorities. Although there are some benefits of emphasizing distinctive characteristic of their home, I argue that this mindset would impact on the architectural theme of the entire area.
To begin with, building a house is a rare occasion that a person can do in limited times of their lives, so it is understandable to organize it in a personalized manner and there are undeniable advantages about it. First, it blows in a new wind of change to the environment, adding more vivid colour to the picture and helping the project stand out among others. Secondly, it reduces administration workload for the government of validating the proposed outline and policing the execution to ensure alignment with what was on the paper to what was erected. Finally, the nonuniformity of a residential area, at the end of the day, is not a crucial like other priorities such as healthcare or education.
On the other hand, breaking through the common structure of a traditional architect can cost more in the future to restore it. A different shape and material might destroy the uniform which the town is well-known for hence a personal desire would be traded off by the loss of entity of a whole community. Tourists, in generally, magnet to a place for its traditional housing and by allowing local citizens to dictate their own taste to concrete their house could jeopardize an industry which is tourism. For instance, there is an old town in Vietnam called ‘Hoi An’ and all the houses there are standardized with three main compartments: living room, bedrooms and kitchen with their trademark dark yellow paints. If the authorities allowed a free style of building, the value that generations have been preserved in centuries would have been destroyed in a blink.
In conclusion, I believe that preserving the same traditional home has far more benefits than transforming it based on individual preference.
It is true in
a lot of
metropolises,
people
do not
necessarily
have to
submit their design and construction plan to the local authorities. Although there are
some
benefits of emphasizing distinctive characteristic of their home, I argue that this mindset would impact on the architectural theme of the entire area.
To
begin
with, building a
house
is a rare occasion that a person can do in limited times of their
lives
,
so
it is understandable to organize it
in a personalized manner
and there are undeniable advantages about it.
First
, it blows in a new wind of
change
to the environment, adding more vivid
colour
to the picture and helping the project stand out among others.
Secondly
, it
reduces
administration workload for the
government
of validating the proposed outline and policing the execution to ensure alignment with what was on the paper to what
was erected
.
Finally
, the
nonuniformity
of a residential area, at the
end
of the day, is not a crucial like other priorities such as healthcare or education.
On the other hand
, breaking through the common structure of a traditional architect can cost more in the future to restore it. A
different
shape and material might
destroy
the uniform which the town is well-known for
hence
a personal desire would
be traded
off by the loss of entity of a whole community. Tourists, in
generally
, magnet to a place for its traditional housing and by allowing local citizens to dictate their
own
taste to concrete their
house
could jeopardize an industry which is tourism.
For instance
, there is an
old
town in Vietnam called ‘
Hoi
An’ and all the
houses
there
are standardized
with three main compartments: living room, bedrooms and kitchen with their trademark dark yellow paints. If the authorities
allowed
a free style of building, the value that generations have
been preserved
in centuries would have been
destroyed
in a blink.
In conclusion
, I believe that preserving the same traditional home has far more benefits than transforming it based on individual preference.