It is more important for a building to serve its purposes than to look beautiful. Architects do not need to worry about whether it is a real work of art. Do you agree or disagree?
Buildings, not very different from other commodities, perform various functions and serve varying needs of their users. At the centre of the controversy is whether the purposes of a building should be placed above its aesthetical values. As far as I am concerned, these two qualities are not conflicting, but mutually beneficial.
In a modern society, aesthetical considerations are no longer considered as insignificant or luxury but have been integrated as a core function of a building. People have comprehensive requirements or a building. No longer limited to such ordinary functions, such as safety, durability, space, access to facilities, their interests involve decorative details and visual qualities, including ornamentation and furnishings. In simple terms, a pedestrian-looking building is bound to mismatch the trend of the market.
Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that some types of buildings are broadly expected by the public to possess aesthetical values. Standard examples include restaurants, theatres, churches and so forth. A building falling in these categories desires a design of originality and rarity, aiming to distinguish itself from other constructions of its kind or those in its surroundings. Architects' inspirations add values to the building and increase its marketability. Many buildings have become symbolic in the city or region where they are located.
When being concerned with the aesthetic aspect of architecture, people should consider economic feasibility. The focus on the exterior of a building alone will lead to the increase in construction cost, making such an endeavour unjustified. In those cities where overpopulation continues to be a problem and many people cannot afford housing, whether a building looks beautiful would not be taken seriously. In that situation, the rationale is to accommodate a huge population, rather than simply please the eye.
Based on the arguments outlined above, adding visual appeals to a building is consistent with the needs of a modern society. However, it does not mean that the concern on aesthetics should be at the expense of a building's practical functions; on the contrary, a building should be the result of the delicate balance between the two ide
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-31 | Charles Le | 89 | view |
- In the past people stored knowledge in books Nowadays people store knowledge on the internet Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 78
- Some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than the other ones Which types of old buildings should be preserved Do you think that the advantages of preserving these old buildings outweigh the disadvantages 84
- If people could choose between a life without working or a life spending too much time working people would choose a life without work To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- Widespread of technology has given people more freedom to work instead of travelling to work or college Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantage 89
- It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 334, Rule ID: AFFORD_VBG[1]
Message: This verb is used with infinitive: 'to house'.
Suggestion: to house
...a problem and many people cannot afford housing, whether a building looks beautiful wou...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 210, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a building' or simply 'buildings'?
Suggestion: a building; buildings
... aesthetics should be at the expense of a buildings practical functions; on the contrary, a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, so, while, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1904.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 345.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51884057971 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29523788711 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594202898551 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.876264007 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.777777778 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.27777777778 7.06120827912 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143910778879 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0427968378025 0.084324248473 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407978766666 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0783373778817 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030921839745 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 78.4519038076 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.