IELT Task 2: Building function or exterior design? Which is more important?

[paulthephoenix]

When designing a building, the intended use of the building should be taken into account rather than its outward appearance. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

BUILDING AND ITS APPEARANCES

It is widely believed that the interior function of a building should be more significant than its outward design. Personally, I disagree with that point of view.

The first reason why the exterior of a building should be taken into consideration is that it is the appearance that creates the first impression. People are likely to go into a shopping mall with an appealing outward design first before researching what is inside. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that the revenue of any shop highly depends on the prominent look of its store. The coffee shops in Ho Chi Minh city, for instance, always spent a great amount of money renting the unique location and renovating frequently to please the customer eyes.

Furthermore, I strongly believe the exterior of any building should receive more focus as it needs to be in harmony with the city it is located. There are certain requirements set by the city council when erecting a building. In Vietnam, for example, you are not allowed to construct a skyscraper in an archaic city or a model facility near a historical site. Moreover, every buiding is the representative of the city, thus, investing in the appearance is unquestionable as it will be beneficial for both the city and the building’s owner. If a building has an astounding look, it is highly likely to become the symbol of the city. Sydney Opera House is the clearest example of this. This iconic of a building and the city have been so inexorably linked that we can not talk of one thing without thinking about the other.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the outlook of the building is just as significant as the its interior function.

[Luschen]

Hi, your introduction and conclusion both seemed very short and abrupt, I would try to lengthen them a little bit. But more importantly, I don’t know if you have addressed the prompt quite correctly. Your essay seems to be about whether the interior or exterior design of a building is more important. I think the word “outward appearance” is what might have tripped you up. To me, this does not mean “outside” or “exterior”, but rather what you see with your eyes when you look at the building - it can apply to the interior as well as the exterior. So if the interior of the building is a beautiful huge interior hall, but the building is supposed to be used as classrooms, that probably is not a good design, unless this is your teaching philosophy: Open classroom - Wikipedia So I think a better way to address the prompt is which is more important in architecture, form or function? Here is a webpage that argues that function is more important in both architecture and websites. https://www.bluefountainmedia.com/blog/form-function-website-design/

@paulthephoenix

It is widely believed that the interior function of a building should be more significant than its outward design. Personally, I disagree with that point of view.

The first reason why the exterior of a building should be taken into consideration is that it is the appearance that creates the first impression. People are likely to go into a shopping mall with an appealing outward design first before researching what is inside. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that the revenue of any shop highly depends on the prominent look of its [storefront]. {here “its” refers to the shop - a shop cannot have a store, although it can have a storefront} The coffee shops in Ho Chi Minh city, for instance, always spent a great amount of money renting [their] unique location {a unique location sounds a little odd - isn’t every location unique, unless there are somehow two stores sharing the exact same spot?} and renovating frequently to please [their customers’] eyes.

Furthermore, I strongly believe the exterior of any building should receive more focus as it needs to be in harmony with the city it is located. There are certain requirements set by the city council when erecting a building. In Vietnam, for example, you are not allowed to construct a skyscraper in an archaic {“archaic” does not really work here. It means something old, but only in the sense that it is so old it is no longer relevant or functional, like an archaic language that is no longer spoken} city or a model {this doesn’t make sense - do you mean “modern”?} facility near a historical site. Moreover, every [building] is the representative of the city, thus, investing in the appearance is unquestionable as it will be beneficial for both the city and the building’s owner. If a building has an astounding look, it is highly likely to become the symbol of the city. Sydney Opera House is the clearest example of this. This iconic of a building and the city [where it is located] have been so inexorably linked that we can not talk of one thing without thinking about the other. {it is interesting that you chose this example, because this is definitely a case where form was put over function: Sydney Opera House announces major renovations to fix its 'hideous' acoustics }

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the outlook {“outlook” doesn’t really work when talking about a building - I don’t know what the outlook of a building is} of the building is just as significant as the its interior function.

[paulthephoenix]

Hi Luschen, haha good to know the fact about Sydney Opera House :)).
Look like i fail in most of the lexical resource part by trying to put big word in the essay. Noted that.
Thank you very much.