Some people think that newly built houses should follow the style of old houses in local areas. Others think that people should have freedom to build houses of their own styles. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

On the one hand, in some areas, uniformity in architecture might better represent and preserve local culture. For example, all houses in the ancient Vietnamese city of Hoi An, regardless of personal preference, are required to follow an architectural style that adheres to its history as a major commercial port in Vietnam. Every so-called “tube house” in the town is constructed with a Chinese tiled roof, Japanese support joists, French louvered shutters and lampposts which are blended harmoniously with indeginous Vietnamese features such as four-square windows. These architectural characteristics cement Hoi An’s cultural identity, which has greatly contributed to its fame as a destination for both international and domestic tourists in recent years.

On the other hand, I believe any law that governs individual housing styles would be injurious against the rights of ownership. For instance, the Vietnamese constitution allows property owners to possess exclusive rights and control over their property, guaranteeing that one is entitled to decide on both the interior and exterior designs of his house, in accordance with their personal preferences. Consequently, attempting to overrule this legislation would justly provoke public objections and protest. That is why hundreds of citizens residing in the Hanoi Old Quarter protested in 2009 to repeal a decree that prohibited all modern housing styles in the area, despite the fact that the locals desperately needed greater space to accommodate larger family sizes and a personal desire for more modern housing.

In conclusion, although administrative regulations on housing style might help preserve local architectural culture, I would opine that it violates one of the most fundamental proprietary rights of individuals. In my opinion, governments should instead encourage creativity and innovation in housing design to embrace new trends that better reflect contemporary society.

Sample 3:

There are those who opine that new housing construction should architecturally match with the local old housing style, while others argue that people have the right to decide the architecture of their house. This essay discusses both sides of the argument and why I believe that it is necessary for new houses to have the same style as the old surrounding ones.

There are understandable reasons why some feel that new and old houses in an area should be the same in terms of architecture. The first reason is that this can contribute to maintaining the architectural and historical values of a city or town. For example, new houses in Hoi An Ancient Town in Vietnam are required by law to follow the traditional architectural style of the existing ones. This is the reason helping the town become one of UNESCO world heritage sites. Another reason is that applying the same architectural pattern for houses in a particular area can protect local people from natural catastrophes. For example, houses in Japan are made of wood and equipped with underground shelters in order to shield the community from earthquakes happening annually.

On the other hand, it is believed that people should be allowed to decide their own housing style. First of all, people in an area may have different financial capabilities. Therefore, it will be difficult for those having a low income, if they are forced to construct a house requiring a large amount of money for its construction. Furthermore, a house is perceived to be the most valuable property that a person can possess, so they should have the right to decide the housing style that they favor to build it. 

In conclusion, I firmly believe that both sides of the argument have their positive points. However, I am inclined to believe that preserving history and protection from natural disasters is more important than the cost to build the house and people’s rights to build houses as they choose.

Sample 4:

Some people believe that people should build new houses that must adhere to the old-fashioned styles in their neighborhoods, while others believe that it is unnecessary to preserve the culture. In my opinion, if a location has a distinct style, people should build new residences that adhere to that design.

Due to the advantages of the local unique style, people in some special regions, such as old antique villages, are required to follow the culture if they go there to make money to support themselves and their families. Hoi An, for example, in Vietnam's central region, has a distinctive design. Because of the historical style of Hoi An culture, individuals living there have more career prospects in tourism-related fields, such as tour guides and selling human necessities. People in Hoi An have better living conditions as a result of tourism development, which is an important factor in Vietnam's economic development. In conclusion, remarkable style provides a lot of advantages in some specific regions; so, individuals must follow the style in some specific localities.

The option of constructing all similar structures in a neighborhood is advantageous for a variety of reasons. Traditional belief in many nations holds that a house reflects the wealth or social position of its owner. As a result, owners of less appealing and modern homes may feel inferior and will engage in fewer conversational engagements with their neighbors. It is obvious that this sad situation will lead to social isolation and a loss of overall life pleasure in the long run. People in other places, such as metropolises, do not need to follow a trend or a culture to build a new house. In reality, despite the high cost of living and the fast speed of life, individuals have been flocking to cities to settle down and earn a living for their families. As a result, metropolises are culturally diverse. People may also feel a lot more at ease when they develop a new freestyle house. To summarise, it is unnecessary to construct a new residence that must adhere to large city culture.

To summarise, because of the hugely favorable consequences of old-fashioned style houses in some specific places, individuals must adhere to the style if they are to settle down and earn money to live there. Furthermore, persons living in other regions are not required to adhere to the culture, so they can construct a new home that is suitable for them.

Sample 5:

Some argue that the architectural style of new houses should be the same as that of historic structures in the neighborhood, while others argue that residents should be free to design their own house style. I agree with the second point of view.

On the one hand, the main reason why modern buildings should be built in the style of older ones is to maintain tangible cultural heritage, which might enhance revenue from the tourism industry in certain places. Hoi An, one of Vietnam's most famous historic towns, brilliantly exhibits this predicament. Indeed, Hoi An is well-known for its tubular-shaped historic buildings created with the traditional architectural ensemble during the 17th century. As a result, Hoi An has become a major tourist attraction, attracting millions of domestic and international visitors each year.

However, I feel that the aesthetic design of one-of-a-kind buildings has considerably greater positive effects on human psychology and the psychology of towns as a whole. It is claimed that living in a modern and dynamic environment, which is normally connected with security and comfort, improves our mental well-being. According to studies, poorly built buildings increase the risk of health deterioration and academic underachievement. On a bigger scale, the vivid picture of a town with a distinct style inspires foreign tourists to visit the town, which is beneficial to the growth of tourism and culture.

On the other hand, there are strong reasons that people should have the freedom to design their own homes. For starters, the architecture of the historic buildings may not suit some people because everyone has their own taste and aesthetic perception. As a result, forcing people to build dwellings in a set pattern is unreasonable. Second, it would be far less expensive to construct a modern, simple house rather than one that must reflect architectural aspects. This means that traditional building materials, such as wood, tiles, and stone, are difficult to obtain due to their high cost, whilst modern houses are made using less expensive materials, such as aluminum or plastic.

In conclusion, while it is commonly assumed that the design of modern and traditional buildings should be the same, I believe that owners should be free to design their homes in any way they see fit.

Sample 6:

While some believe that new houses should be built in an identical style to the existing ones in the area, others argue that people should have freedom to design their houses to their own liking. For me, I strongly support the latter idea.

On the one hand, houses constructed in the same design as surrounding buildings can bring the area a sense of uniformity and maintain traditional values, which helps boost the local economy. To illustrate, in Hoi An - a famed ancient city in Vietnam that is known for its touristy streets filled with old houses, all the buildings are required to duplicate the style of age-old ones in the area. This is to preserve the ancient look, which is one of the city’s main attractions. Even international brands such as Starbucks have to conform to this obligation.

On the other hand, I side with the view that how a house is designed should lie with the owners alone and not the authorities. To begin with, a traditional design may cause inconveniences. For instance, a modern family of five would find it difficult to live in a single-storey house with limited land area. Therefore, if the government prohibits buildings with multiple storeys, the family would have to live in discomfort. Furthermore, a design from another time may not be everyone’s cup of tea. Being able to reside where they feel content is one of anyone’s individual liberties, thus, being forced to live in a house whose design they dislike would be unreasonable.

In conclusion, although there are sound reasons why newly built houses should mirror the area’s existing architectural style, I believe that it is best that people have authority over their own houses’ design. Because that would bring the residents both happiness and convenience.

Sample 7:

It is a controversial issue as to whether newly built houses should be designed in the same style as existing homes in the same area, or, whether the residents should have permission to construct their houses in a style of their own preference. My view is that people should be given permission to build their houses to their own design, as long as these designs satisfy all necessary safety requirements.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why all buildings in a particular area should have the same style. Firstly, when houses look similar it will enhance a sense of community and equality within a residential area. This is because a house often reflects the wealth and social status of its owner. If a house looks older, smaller, and less attractive than others, the people living there may feel inferior and less confident when socialising with their neighbours. In contrast, a house which stands out in the neighbourhood could potentially make its owner the target of gossip or burglary. Secondly, when houses share a common design, it will be easier for the local government to supervise the process of construction, and to make sure that these buildings are safe for both the inhabitants and neighbours.

On the other hand, it should be people’s right to build their own house in their own style. A good building should satisfy all three principles of durability, utility, and beauty. It should not only be strong in design and be built to last a long time, but also inspire the people who live there by its aesthetic design. It is extremely important for a person to live in a house that they feel comfortable with as it largely affects their spirit. Furthermore, if each house in an area is built in a unique style, it will greatly contribute to the diverse image of the town.

In conclusion, even though there are certain justifications for houses in an area to be constructed in the same style, I am of the opinion that governments should permit people to build their houses according to their own ideas.

Sample 8:

It is argued that the architectural style of new buildings should be the same as that of old buildings in local areas, while others believe that people should be free to design their own house the way they prefer. I personally agree with the second group.

On the one hand, the primary reason why some people think that modern constructions should follow the style of the old ones in local areas is that this helps preserve traditional and cultural values, which could boost tourism in these areas. Take Hoi An, which is one of the most famous ancient cities in Vietnam, as an example. Local people in this city are encouraged to preserve their old houses or construct new houses in traditional architectural styles. As a result, Hoi An has become a popular tourist destination that attracts millions of tourists on an annual basis.

On the other hand, I would argue that people should have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to building their own house. The first reason is that many people do not like the style of old buildings in their neighbourhood. Their rights would be violated if they were forced to live in a house that they do not feel comfortable about the design. Another reason that needs to be mentioned is cost. It would be much cheaper to build a modern simple house rather than one which has to mirror past architectural standards.

In conclusion, although some people say that the design and construction of modern and traditional buildings should be the same, I personally believe that the owners should be allowed to decide the way their own house will be built.

Sample 9:

There is no doubt that designing is an integral part of a new building project. Some individuals are of the opinion that the architectural style of newly built constructions should be incompatible with others in neighboring areas. However, others suppose that people have the right to build houses according to their personal preference. In this essay, I shall put forth the discussion about those views as well as state my own opinion.

On the one hand, it is true that the homogeneity of the exterior design of houses enhances the sense of community and equality. Obviously, the same style in designing houses creates no classification between the rich and the poor. Thus, people would not only gain social harmony but also the feeling of kinship among neighbors. Besides, through many distinctive and unique patterns, the similar design houses do not simply reflect its façade, but it represents cultural values as well. For instance, in France, alongside the Seine River is Honfleur harbor with hundreds of houses built in middle age in the same style which has been turned into an appealing destination to foreign tourists.

On the other hand, the freedom to build houses can boost human creativity. Since people have the right to design, there is no limit in material, color, and size; they can apply their own taste into state-of-the-art accommodation. Gradually, the more style of houses in the community, the more vividly captivating it becomes. Moreover, building houses with no restrictions in style can meet the financial state of some people. As if they are obliged to follow the unity of architecture in a particular area, they can hardly afford a fully designed house like others. Therefore, it is almost impossible to force those individuals to build houses that corresponded with some attached styles.

To conclude, notwithstanding all the merits of designing houses in the same style as others, from my perspective I am in accord with the view that houses ought to be freely designed in the way which their owners desire.

Sample 10:

Opinions are divided on whether it is better to give people control over how they style their houses or to maintain a uniform architectural design in a residential area. From my perspective, while this homogeneity may be beneficial to some extent, homeowners should be entitled to adopt their preferred designs.

Major arguments for the uniformity of building styles can often boil down to the associated aesthetic values and economic gains. The consistency of residential buildings in a neighborhood would likely lead to an overall architectural harmony that wouldn’t otherwise be possible were prospective house owners to follow their own designs. The whole, in this case, would be greater than the sum of its parts, which translates into a unique appeal for the area. This appeal, if harnessed properly, could promote tourism, and thus contribute to local economic growth. A case in point is Hoi An ancient town, a complex of traditional houses, where building codes in favor of the colonial style render a one-of-a-kind idyllic beauty across the town, which promises a nostalgic experience for visitors. The resulting influx of them has brought in substantial revenue, which makes tourism the lifeblood of the town.

Despite the aforementioned benefit, the imposition of a one-size-fits-all style would prove arbitrary to the varying needs of house owners. In terms of interior design, the utilization of living space, for example, would differ greatly from a nuclear family to an extended one, particularly in terms of room distribution. Nuclear families typically need fewer rooms, and therefore a standard living space design could hardly strike a balance between the needs of the two groups. With regards to exterior structure, some homeowners opt for a modern and utilitarian design, such as roofs and walls covered in solar panels to cut down the electricity bill. The only problem is that such design would, in many cases, prove impractical in a classic house design; and a balance between function and style could prove costly to many owners.

In conclusion, it would be unwise to make architectural design mandatory in a local area without considering its impact on the lives of residents. In the absence of such evaluation, dwellers should retain their control over the style of their own homes.

Sample 11:

People have different opinions as to whether the architectural design of newly built houses should follow the same style of existing homes or follow their style preference. Personally, I believe that they should have permission to construct unique houses.

The option to construct all alike buildings in a vicinity is beneficial for many reasons. In many countries, traditional wisdom dictates that a house is a reflection of the wealth or social status of its owner. As a result, the owners of less attractive and less modern houses would feel inferior and less engaged in conversational exchanges with their neighbors. This unfortunate problem is likely to cause social isolation and an overall decrease in life satisfaction in the long term. By contrast, constructing similar houses helps to develop a sense of community and unity within a residential area. On a government level, since all buildings share a common design, the task of supervising the process of construction becomes more manageable, ensuring these buildings satisfy construction safety requirements.

However, I support the view that the aesthetic design of unique buildings has far more positive impacts on the psychology of humans and a town as a whole. Living in a modern and dynamic environment which is usually associated with security and comfort is thought to boost our emotional well-being. Research has shown the correlation between poorly designed buildings and the risk of health deterioration and academic underachievement. On a larger scale, the vivid image of a town with a unique style attracts foreign tourists to come to visit the town, which is conducive to the development of tourism and culture.

In conclusion, I concur with the idea that constructing unique houses has more benefits, whereas maintaining an identical design for constructing all buildings in a particular area is worth consideration.

Sample 12:

Many feel it is crucial that homeowners possess the freedom to design their own property, while others feel there should be restrictions. In my opinion, the value of preserving the identity of a neighborhood outweighs the rights of property owners.

Those in favor of unfettered choice argue this can inspire and motivate. When an owner has the ability to express an individual vision, they are naturally more invested in developing their property. Examples of this abound in newer cities such as Shenzhen in mainland China. There is little history to disturb and therefore architects are encouraged to pursue a vision in concert with owners that is aesthetically pleasing and novel. The result is modern homes and offices that push the boundaries of design and in the aggregate contribute an energy and vitality that can enliven, or even revitalize in some cases, an urban area.

However, in the majority of communities it is more important to prioritize cultural preservation. This is because the unique character of many cities and neighborhoods is today under threat from the irreversible effects of globalization. A standout instance of this would be the old quarter in Hanoi in Vietnam. The government has imposed strict regulations in recent years as a growing middle class has attempted to modernize their living conditions. To preserve the historic character of the city, many new homes must meet certain guidelines, including having classic wooden shutters, employing older building materials and not demolishing noteworthy homes. These efforts in Hanoi and similar cities conserve essential and unique aspects of history and culture.

In conclusion, despite endeavors to allow for freedom of expression in design, I believe that it is generally more valuable to preserve historically relevant design principles. Governments must naturally balance this with a desire to modernize.

Sample 13:

The issue of whether or not houses should be constructed according to the current style in their locality or be allowed to pursue any style at all is in contention. This essay aims to examine both viewpoints, followed by my personal opinion on the matter.

On the one hand, there are several benefits of building new residential establishments with the same style. One of such advantages is that cohesion in the community can be fostered. If all of the houses in the same neighbourhood follow the same architecture, the overall image can be maintained, especially in places with many historical buildings. This can also help residents avoid being the target of discrimination should their accommodation falls below the community's standard or burglary if their house is deemed too extravagant. In terms of regulation, it would be easier for local authorities to standardise and manage the construction process when there is only one uniform design, which can ensure inhabitants' safety. A case in point can be observed in Japan, where buildings in earthquake-prone areas must adopt a government-approved seismically resistant design, otherwise they must undergo necessary reinforcement so as to prevent fatal damage from happening to their occupants.

On the other hand, having the freedom to choose any style has its perks. The first point to mention is that this allows the host family to avoid exceeding their budget should they decide to settle in an upscale area as they might lack the means to construct a house based on the grandiose design of their neighbours. Also, regarding comfort, people should have the right to adjust their house to their liking as they would reside there for an extended period of time. This is because feeling at ease inside the home has a positive impact on their mood. Lastly, different architectural styles encourage diversity in the neighbourhood.

All things considered, I believe that although housing policies must be enforced in certain respects, especially with regards to the well-being of inhabitants, people should still be given the liberty to choose any design they prefer for their residence.

Sample 14:

In the ongoing debate about architectural styles in housing, there are those who argue that new houses should echo the established styles of older houses in the local area, while others contend that homeowners should have the freedom to build houses in styles of their choosing. This essay will delve into both these perspectives. Personally, I firmly advocate the idea that new houses should be constructed in harmony with the architectural heritage of the local area.

Opponents of uniformity in housing styles assert that allowing individuals to build houses according to their preferences fosters creativity and diversity in neighbourhoods. They argue that this approach can lead to a unique and eclectic urban landscape, reflecting the varied tastes and personalities of the residents. However, this viewpoint may overlook the potential negative impact on the overall visual coherence and historical continuity of a neighbourhood.

Conversely, adherents to the idea of maintaining a consistent architectural style argue that it preserves the cultural and historical identity of a locality. Constructing new houses in the same style as older ones helps maintain a harmonious aesthetic, preventing disjointed and visually disruptive additions. For instance, historic districts with uniform architecture often attract tourists and contribute to a sense of community pride.

Supporting the latter perspective, I believe that building new houses in the same style as older ones fosters a sense of continuity, preserving the unique character and charm of a neighbourhood. This approach not only pays homage to the architectural heritage but also ensures a cohesive and visually appealing urban environment.

To conclude, in essence, the choice of architectural styles should strike the collective preservation of local identity. Therefore, new houses in a local area should reflect the traditional and architectural styles of the old houses.

Sample 15:

While some argue that maintaining architectural continuity enhances the cultural and historical fabric of a locality, others believe that allowing diversity in housing styles fosters individual expression and creativity. This essay will discuss both views. Personally, I advocate for the stance that local authorities should permit individuals to build houses in styles of their own choosing.

Proponents of adhering to traditional architectural styles argue that it preserves the character and historical identity of a community. When new houses complement the established styles, they contribute to a visually cohesive and harmonious urban environment. For instance, in historic districts where local authorities mandate uniformity, the result is often a charming and picturesque streetscape that attracts residents and visitors alike. This not only makes the area visually appealing but also boosts the economy by bringing in more tourists. 

On the other hand, opponents contend that rigid regulations stifling architectural creativity limit the potential for unique and innovative designs. Allowing homeowners to choose their preferred styles encourages diversity and can lead to a more vibrant and dynamic neighbourhood. For example, modernist designs or innovative eco-friendly housing might emerge, contributing to a visually diverse and progressive urban landscape.

Supporting the perspective that local authorities should permit individuals to build houses in various styles, I believe that fostering architectural diversity allows for a more inclusive and adaptable urban development. 

In conclusion, the benefits of allowing individuals the freedom to build in styles of their own choice cannot be overlooked. Local authorities should recognize the value of diversity and individual expression in architectural designs. Permitting a range of housing styles fosters a sense of creativity, adaptability, and inclusivity in urban development.

Sample 16:

A section of society deems that houses should be erected in the same design in an area, yet others think that local authorities should permit citizens to construct homes in their own style. While traditional style can promote equality, this essay argues that municipal authorities should honour people’s rights in this matter.

There are several advantages that come with building identical houses in a locality. When all houses look alike, it ignites a sense of camaraderie among residents, thereby cultivating equality. Apart from that, the neighbourhood also is endowed with a classic look. Most importantly, it can translate into an economic boom. A very good example is Hanoi city. The authority of the city binds people to meet certain guidelines compatible with its history and culture, thus attracting tourists. Every year many tourists flock to the city, thereby contributing greatly to the local economy.

Proponents of unfettered choice, on the contrary, argue that residents should have freedom of choice when it comes down to designing their houses and I concur with the notion. It is their civil right, and the authority should not force people when it comes to designing their abodes. Besides, when people have freedom, they are more likely to choose a contemporary design that confers many benefits. For example, in this way space is utilized efficiently. That is to say that ceiling space, hallways, and corridors are designed to minimize transitional spaces while maximizing airflow in a house. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, it offers a chance of reflecting the owner’s unique personality.

All in all, although similar styles of housing in an area improve equality as well as the economy, I find that it is individuals’ democratic right to design their property. Therefore, local authorities should respect citizens’ rights and choices.

Sample 17:

The question of whether newly constructed homes should be built in the same style as older homes in the same neighborhood or if people should be allowed to build their homes in a style of their choosing is contentious. In my opinion, people should be allowed to build their homes according to their own plans as long as those plans meet all relevant safety regulations.

On the one hand, there are several explanations for why every structure in a specific area ought to have the same design. First of all, a neighborhood’s sense of equality and community will be strengthened by similar-looking homes. This is true because a home frequently represents the social standing and income of its owner. If a home is smaller, older, and less appealing than others, the residents may feel inferior and less self-assured when mingling with their neighbors. The owner of a home that stands out in the neighborhood, however, may become the subject of rumors or become a target for theft. Second, when houses have a similar design, it will be simpler for the local government to monitor the building process and ensure that these structures are secure for both the occupants and the surrounding community. On the other hand, everyone should have the freedom to design and construct their own home. All three of the durability, functionality, and beauty principles should be met by a good structure. It should not only have a sturdy design and be constructed to last for a long time, but also serves to inspire the locals with its beautiful architecture. Living in a home that one feels at home in is crucial for someone because it greatly affects their spirit. Furthermore, the distinctive appearance of the town will be substantially enhanced if every home in a neighborhood is constructed in a different style.

In conclusion, I believe that governments should allow people to build their homes according to their own ideas, even though there are some reasons for houses in a neighborhood to be built in a similar design.