To what extent do you agree?

Some people think the new building in cities and towns should be built in traditional styles. To what extent do you agree?

     Nowadays, many countries are developing smart cities. Smart city is about innovation and technology. To fulfill this kind of subject, many buildings are designed creative. However, some citizens believe that is better to build the traditional styles building in cities. It is true if all buildings are built in the same style could keep the consistency of the city. Yet, there are more positivity to build the building creatively.

    First of all, building the architectures innovative is encouraging creativity. It is the best way to spur energy into the city. Building traditional styles architectures is keeping the consistency, but it also hinders innovation and making the tourists feel boring to see the same style architectures throughout the city. In some cities, such as Shenzhen, there are many new buildings are built in innovative style. This kind of architectures attracts many people to visit. At the same time, it attracts people to leave their hometown and start the career over there. It is because this kind of buildings is representing energetic and innovative. People are more willing to work in this kind of buildings than the traditional buildings.

     Secondly, it is more environmental friendly if giving up the traditional styles building. Climate change is increasingly serious with no doubt. Creative design could ease the problem because the designers could think more on this aspect. In recent years, many shopping malls are designed with many glass windows. This is a perfect example of saving energy by creative design. The transparency of glass windows is making the shopping malls bright enough even switching off the lights before evening. It saves a lot of energy by using the nature daylight.

     Thirdly, it is sort of protectionism of traditional architects if the city focus on building the traditional styles building. The new generation architects might have their original styles. It undermines their creativity and probably set up a big hurdle for the next great architect. The masterpiece Lourve Museum is an innovative design even in the present. If the government had not agree with this original design, we might lose one of the greatest architecture today.

    To conclude, building architectures innovative is encouraging creativity. Meanwhile, it could ease the issue of climate change for building environmental friendly buildings. Furthermore, it denies protectionism of the traditional designers.