Government should protect culture. Therefore, some people believe that new buildings should be built in traditional styles. To what extent do you agree or disagree？

Governments around the world are increasingly concerned with preserving cultural identity, and one proposed way of doing so is to require new buildings to follow traditional architectural styles. I agree that this is a valuable policy, but only when applied selectively — specifically in areas of historical or cultural significance, rather than across all new construction.

In historic city centres and heritage districts, maintaining architectural continuity is genuinely important. When new buildings in these areas adopt traditional designs — local materials, characteristic rooflines, period-appropriate facades — they strengthen a neighbourhood's visual identity and signal respect for the communities that built it. Cities such as Prague and Kyoto attract millions of visitors partly because their built environments feel coherent and rooted in local tradition. Allowing generic glass towers to replace older structures in these districts would erode the very character that makes them culturally distinctive. In this sense, government requirements for traditional design serve a legitimate protective function.

Admittedly, applying this requirement to all new buildings would be both impractical and counterproductive. Modern cities need hospitals, universities, transport hubs, and commercial centres that are designed around contemporary technology and the scale of current populations. These buildings serve functional purposes that traditional construction methods — which were often expensive, slow, and built for far smaller communities — simply cannot meet efficiently. Forcing a business district or a high-capacity residential development into a traditional aesthetic would raise costs unnecessarily and often produce a superficial imitation of history rather than a genuine preservation of it. The goal, therefore, should not be cultural uniformity but rather cultural sensitivity in the right places.

In conclusion, I agree that governments should protect cultural heritage through architecture, but this obligation is best met through targeted policies rather than sweeping mandates. Requiring traditional styles in historically significant areas preserves what is worth preserving, while allowing modern design elsewhere ensures that cities can continue to develop and function effectively.