There is a considerable debate about the styles of new houses in local areas. Some argue that individuals should build homes with the same style as the old housing, while others believe people should be allowed to construct based on their style. In my opinion, a balanced approach is an effective policy for this concern as it can promote unity and individual freedom.
Proponents of unifying the style of houses in local areas assert that it can foster unity and strong connections among residents. Uniformity is one of the things that can deepen understanding among societies. By erecting the same type of houses, it helps residents to have a sense of belonging to the communities. For instance, the same house type can avoid the issues that might arise from the difference in the house style. This practice exhibits a massive community with a strong brand identity.
On the other hand, the opposite view argues that local authorities should allow people to build houses in their style. This notion reassures the freedom that individuals possess. The government must provide people with individual rights. Therefore, people have the right to express their creativity following personal and cultural preferences, leading to decreased stress and improved overall well-being. For example, people in rural areas, whose different house styles, show a high level of happiness as they have houses that suit their needs and expectations.
In conclusion, while it is important to construct new houses with the same style as the old ones, as it can foster unity and a sense of belonging, allowing people to build new houses can also promote human freedom and help them to express their unique perspective. That being said, I believe there should be a balance, depending on the local area planning. Therefore, accommodating these two approaches is important for the government to create a supportive environment.