It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects shouldn’t worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree?

It is true that buildings should be more utilitarian than beautiful. However, I disagree that architects should not make efforts about making artistic buildings. I believe that today’s architects have the expertise and the resources to design buildings which are both – beautiful and useful.

A good building should satisfy the three principles of durability, utility and beauty. It should stand up robustly and remain in good condition. It should be useful and function well for the people using it. It should delight people and raise their spirits. A good architect should strive to fulfil each of these three attributes as well as possible.

To begin with, the burgeoning population and the scarcity of land today have raised the debate whether the buildings of today should only be useful and not beautiful. However, the skyscrapers of today are the answers to both these problems. They accommodate a lot of people in the least amount of space and these skyscrapers are architectural marvels in terms of beauty.

Secondly, the natural resources are limited and it is the need of the hour to make energy efficient buildings. For example, using solar panels and other energy saving measures are the need of the day. Today’s architects have been successful in designing aesthetically appealing solar panels which need less space. The climate changes that are taking place because of global warming need buildings that need less air conditioning and yet remain cool.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is commendable for architects to understand function, and aesthetics both. It is a big responsibility to have buildings which are both useful and beautiful and architects of today have the capability to do so.