please help revised this argumentative essay. please help add more and go over the commenter questions and help add what is needed. please add the reference it in. please make it sound better with a intro body conclusion. please include what the commenter wants.

the essay is below

commenter questions

1. The introduction needs a clear thesis statement at the bottom, that tells what the essay is about, followed by an "itinerary"/"agenda". An example would be: "Public opinion is divided over whether further construction of modernist buildings should be banned. The dispute is about such issues as appeal, and impacts on public housing, the economy and the environment."

2. There is no Works Cite page or in-text citations. However, the focus still needs to be narrowed. till narrow the focus. Feedback on how to narrow the focus will follow.

3. "Architecture and Designing Buildings" is too broad. As is, the essay focuses on the negative aspects of modernist designs everywhere. However, the project might be more manageable, if you focused on one place - like Washington, D.C., and reorganize the material that you already have in your essay, as it relates to that battle that began taking place when Trump was in office, and continues today.

If you reorganize your essay so that it relates only to "those in favor" of banning future modernist designs from Washington, D.C., VERSUS the Modernist Architects. The central question would be whether the Federal Government should ban the future construction of modernist buildings in Washington, D.C. WHAT TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION YOU ALREADY HAVE IN YOUR ESSAY

... Keep it, but re-organize it.

... Consider the following organization of the Body of the Essay:

Are the Designs Appealing?

A. No

B. Yes

II. Should Modernist Designs Replace Public Housing

A. No

B. Yes

III. Would Modernist Designs Have a Positive Impact?

A. No

B. Yes

You can use most of what you already have in the essay, but most of what you already have in the essay supports the arguments of those who are against the modernist designs. You need to add the opinions of the other side, - the architects who argue in favor of continuing to construct the modernist designs. I suggest that you skim and include information from a few articles at the following google search site. They contain arguments of architects against a ruling that would ban future modernist buildings in places like Washington, DC:https://www.google.com/search?q=pros+and+cons+of+modernist+architecture&sca_esv=4ec0a258a4d8e3e4&sxsrf=ACQVn0-IB5DgCvz9XmQHZMt1SxoY3NBMTg%3A1711495632022&ei=0FkDZtpv9qLk2g-C6oXIDA&ved=0ahUKEwjal7mJipOFAxV2EVkFHQJ1AckQ4dUDCBA&oq=pros+and+cons+of+modernist

REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SUCH A BAN

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805256707/just-plain-ugly-proposed-executive-order-takes-aim-at-modern-architecture

reference

1:https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural-community/controversial-issues-in-architectural-field/

:https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural-community/a7838-architects-and-environmental-issues/#

https://archinect.com/news/article/150332977/architecture-s-controversies-in-2022-the-industry-continued-to-be-scarred-by-strife-and-scandal

https://www.manobyte.com/growth-strategy/top-challenges-for-architects

: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815062552

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/brutalist-architecture-101#

https://www.kevinklinkenberg.com/blog/architecting-a-controversy

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/controversy-architecture-ric-blenkharn

https://www.houzz.com/discussions/2630970/modern-architecture-controversy

https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural-community/controversial-issues-in-architectural-field/

Controversy essay on architecture positive and negative 'impacts

When it comes to architecture and designing buildings there can be some functional and dysfunctional designs. And in recent years many would agree that Modern architecture is impacting negatively and is creating dysfunctional designs. Edifice designs will depend on many factors, one is its architect and the funding entity financing the design. Unfortunately people's opinions are at the last of their list when the designer is creating the blueprints and in all likelihood he or she doesn't care about their opinion. But the community has lots to say about how functional these modern buildings are being built and in recent years individuals are showcasing in the media and making comments on the dysfunctionality of some of the new structures, saying it's unpleasant, flawed and expensive to obtain. Many lament the tear down of old classic houses to turn them into new updated houses creating discontent in society. Social and economic impact of new designs, such as how the building will impact the health and well being of occupants and how they'll affect the environment in terms of resources. How affordable this building is another concern that many modern architects don't consider when designing their creations. In addition architects need to follow up with the city before they plan on starting their project but it looks like the city doesn't care how the building would look as long as they get the project started and done. That's where the people come in saying negative things about the designs now.

Regarding the overall appeal of modernist architectural designs, according to a survey done by The Harris Poll, sponsored by the National Civil Art Society, people prefer traditional buildings over modern designs. In the United States An average of 72% of people favored the classical styles over modern ones (1). This dislike happens around the world, the building Tour Montparnasse, a black paneled skyscraper, was hated by Parisians causing the city to an ordinance forbidding any skyscraper higher than 36 meters. Modern designs are call by many ugly and out of touch but if people express their opinions to the architects they will receive a rebuke about how misguided, and they would go on about how these buildings are engineering wonders due to the complexity to be build but people prefer to find a connection with things, this includes buildings and its styles and its really difficult to maintain our eyes or focus on boxes rather than on ornamented constructions. In addition there is a new trend in that the contemporary designs are creating minimals or nonexistent family gathering spaces, 12% compared to 40% that traditional designs show, which is believed to be reducing the time of family interaction and fragmenting more the already dysfunctional social structure of our times (2).

Regarding the possibility of modernist designs replacing affordable housing is one of the major concerns of communities and regrettably this is also a crucial point why designs are less appealing to normal individuals. According to Miss Hoyt and Ms. Schuetz, a building facade, amounts for 20% to 30% of the total cost and it's an important part of the construction since it works as a thermal barrier and it defines how air is moved in and out(3). When an architect is bidding for a project they need to take into consideration cost and the time it will take for the design to be made. If these are not to the satisfaction of the developer then another architectural firm will win the bid. and even though modern design was used mainly to create the minimalist view and to showcase the engineering process, it actually assisted to the booming of the depressive "boxy" styles production since it would require less use of the time and the use of cheap materials such as concrete as well as others that could contain toxic chemicals, causing their occupants to shorter life span, removing all probability of the use of other ornaments in their structures. The efficiency of the building process is much more important than the functionality of the space and the happiness of the people who are the ones living in this society.

Regarding the social and economic impact of modernist designs, in the beginnings of civilization the concern of individuals was to meet their needs by looking for shelters and structures made of natural materials. But as time went on, and we evolved, it became important to create structures that would display our culture, beliefs, an example the temples and cathedrals builded in the prehistoric times, as well as our styles and techniques to build these structures. These massive constructions would require a great influx of materials and individuals to accomplish their task, helping the economy of these communities to flourish and develop. According to Mckinsey Global Institute the construction sector is the largest world economy with about $10 trillion spent on construction related goods and services every year(4). And it continues to grow every year, but the designs continue to maintain the same modern styles without considering if it is eco friendly, if it's visible likable by the communities and if it reflects our culture and styles, which is causing individuals to repel this designs.

Regarding the environmental impact of modernist designs, going green is the new tendency of architectural Design but how "New" can we really say this concept is? Before the industrial revolution there was no other choice architects to go "green" and to use the materials and energy resources to maining the heat and cool the buildings. As per the School of Architecture, in this time designers are taught to use the resources in Accordance with the climate and the regions where these constructions are being made (5). An example of eco-friendly traditional design is the Italian Pavilion, a low carbon neutral structure, builded with traditional techniques, and reusable materials and with a style that even though it was built in the desert and doesn't have air conditioning the cleverly designed rope walls aids with natural ventilation. And even though the new generation of architects are being introduced to these forms of styles once they start in the real world, the reality Is that developers still want to maximize benefits and the cost of ugly, dysfunctional structures.