Some feel that cities should be designed to be beautiful, while others think their functionality is more important. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
A few people argue that urban areas first be made beautiful, while others consider practicality is more important than beautifying cities. I consider functionality is more important than aesthetic aspects as work opportunities and other amenities automatically make the cities gorgeous.
According to the former view, Metropolitan areas must look beautiful to attract tourists; resultantly, tourism will develop and generate income for the government as well as for the local people. To exemplify it, Chandigarh, Bangalore, is known for its green spaces and other tall buildings. People usually visit these places and appreciate the construction work. Moreover, people find themselves in heaven if they are surrounded by beautiful objects. Beautiful cities provide mental relaxation to the people, and thus by removing their monotony, these make them let in more positivity and a sense of satisfaction.
On the other hand, the latter view focuses more on the usability of the cities. Firstly, if Megapolis areas can provide employment opportunities and leisure facilities, these are considered valuable. In other words, creating a hassle-free travelling of the people from work to house and providing medical amenities as well as schools for children to learn. In this way, more and more people like to live and work there. They will be able to get to every facility there. Besides, encouraging public transport by making it efficient will stop people from using their vehicles. Consequently, people will be living in a place free from pollution. This is only possible if cities are accessible and can provide necessary help for their residents. It will be good for our environment.
In conclusion, it is apparent that cities must be stunning and provide modern facilities to their people. In my perspective, the utility of cities is more important as it makes the life of people easier and provides them work opportunities and raises their standard of living, ultimately making the megapolis areas more attractive.
In this contemporary world, cities are developing at a rapid pace. Although some groups of people believe that towns should be planned and built to look more attractive, others argue that the city’s main purpose is what matters most. This essay shall strongly subscribe to the latter. Meanwhile, the two opposing views shall be critically analyzed, after which a logical conclusion will be drawn.
Starting with the first school of thought, they perceive that cities should appear more attractive; this gives it nice scenery and attracts more visitors from around the world. Without a shadow of up doubt, myriad tourists love to visit destinations where there are numerous numbers of skyscrapers, beautiful beaches and so forth, as this gives them immense relaxation and makes their trip very memorable. For instance, most people tend to travel to Dubai, where tall buildings, underwater hotels and other relevant scenes exist.
On the other hand, others feel planning a metropolitan area to have a beautiful appearance is of no benefit and that the actual function is irrelevant. From my perspective, I believe this is because satisfying the fundamental needs of society is more beneficial. That is, constructing good roads and trading centres, ensuring the public’s safety, and ensuring there are proper waste management systems and good services are the key factors to consider in designing a town. To buttress this point, most European towns are not built to have a scenic view but are able to serve the purpose of the public.
In conclusion, both sides of the argument have their merits. On balance, however, I believe even though the nice appearance of a city contributes greatly to tourism, that does not mean a place which serves the purpose of its people should be devalued as this contributes immensely to public satisfaction.
Follow Us on IELTSFever Twitter for more updates