In many countries, modern buildings are changing the character and appearance of towns and cities. Some people believe that countries should protect their cultural identity by insisting that all new buildings are built in a traditional style. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Introduction
In recent times, the rise of modern architecture has transformed the appearance of many towns and cities. Some argue that governments should mandate traditional designs for all new constructions to preserve cultural identity. I completely disagree with this view because modern buildings are essential for progress and functionality, and culture can be preserved in other ways.
Body 1 – Practical Needs of Modern Society
Modern architecture caters to the demands of today’s population in ways traditional styles cannot. For instance, high-rise apartments in cities like Mumbai maximize limited land space, which traditional low-rise houses cannot achieve. Similarly, energy-efficient designs with glass and steel support sustainability goals. Therefore, modern styles better serve the needs of contemporary urban life.
Body 2 – Economic Growth and Innovation
Allowing modern buildings also fuels innovation and economic development. Cutting-edge designs often attract tourism, international investment, and global recognition. For example, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa has become a symbol of prosperity and draws millions of visitors annually. Forcing builders to use only traditional designs would stifle creativity and limit economic opportunities.
Body 3 – Concession + Refutation (Strawman)
Admittedly, some people argue that traditional styles reflect cultural heritage and should be preserved. However, culture is not confined to architecture alone. Museums, heritage zones, and festivals can effectively safeguard traditions while still allowing modern skylines to flourish. Thus, insisting on traditional designs for every building is unnecessary and impractical.
Conclusion
In conclusion, modern architecture should not be restricted by traditional styles because it meets the practical needs of society and encourages innovation. While cultural identity is valuable, it can be maintained through other means without hindering architectural progress.
Vishal’s Teaching Note:
In this essay, the strawman technique was used to make my argument stronger. First, I mentioned the opposite view—that towns should only have traditional buildings to save culture. Then, I showed why this view is not fully correct, because culture can also be preserved in museums, festivals, or design elements, while cities still need modern, safe, and practical buildings. By presenting the other side and then proving it weaker, my opinion looks more logical and powerful. Examiners like this because it shows balance, critical thinking, and the ability to handle both sides of the topic—exactly what is needed for Band 8+.
