I bought both the AF-S 35 and the AF-S 50 primes, for my daughter, and they are both cracking lenses. I got her the 35 when I got her the camera, as her only lens (when she wasn't nicking mine!) It has the 'standard' angle of view, on APS-C neither wide angle nor telephoto, and is a pretty useful all-round lens.
The 50? I'm a lot more sanguine about. The length was popularised by folk retro fitting 'old' usually fast aperture, and manual focus lenses from 35mm film cameras, which is a sub-topic worthy of mention, worth coming back to; but, a) both are withing the zoom range of the kit 18-55 lens, so you really have to want to experience primes to use them; but the 50, on an APS-C sensor camera, is a rather short telephoto, equivalent to about 75mm on full-frame or film.
That length was considered a 'useful' lens length for portraiture on film, because it begs backing up enough that it doesn't tend to spread perspective as much as a more wide angle lens, so doesn't make noses so big... for err GCSE photo, that featured that as a large portion of course content, combined with fast maximum aperture to OOF back-grounds made it useful for her... B-U-T, without these more specific and demanding topics high on the agenda... It's hard to recommend either particularly highly, but of the two, for more generalist work, the 35mm probably has it.
Back on the topic of legacy lenses... worth mention; you can fit many older Nikkor lenses from the film era to the D3xxxx series DSLR's they all share the legendary Nikon F-Mount. Many many more via a pretty inexpensive mount adaptor. A little inconvenient, that you loose Auto Focus, more inconvenient is that they dont' have the electronic coupling of more modern electric lenses, and you have to meter manually and set shutter and aperture manually... which may be a drag, if you rely on the automation. But, in recompense, old F-Mount lenses can be pretty cheap on the 2nd hand market; and very very good. Other moints, like M42, maybe not quite so good, but oft an awful lot more cheap! You might pick up an old manual Nikkor 50 for maybe £30-40 compared to perhaps £70 for the Electric counter-part, where you have to watch for earlier pin-drive AF variants that wont AF on the motor-in-lens only D3xxx series cameras, or around £90 for the AF-S verion that will AF on the D3xxx's.
B-U-T potential cash savings are to be found, a-n-d as a toe-ine the water experiment to go mess and see what you like and what you use, there's two things here; first is not looking brand new, but going 2nd hand, which can get you quite a bit more for your money to start with; but, second, you can buy a lot of very good legacy lenses to play with, for the price of just one pretty middling AF zoom, in the price range you are looking at.
When I got my D3200, I got an M42 screw-fit lens adaptor for it, so whilst I saved up for electric lenses for it, I could use some of my old M42 screw lenses from my film cameras. The ones, that I have kept over the years, have been a pentacon 29, which is probably the most oft used, the Zies 50 that was the 'standard' on my Sigma Mk1, a Hanimex, I think, 135 portrait lens, and a 300mm I cant remember what the brand name is! B-U-T you could procure a bag of glass covering that sort of range, for maybe £60... half what you are looking at for one electric lens; so you';d have plenty of scope to play and try and see what you use, like and want to upgrade to in an e-lens.... and likelyt not loose an awful lot in the upgrade, trade in or sell on.
When I bought a telephoto e-lens, the first got was the Nikkor 55-300. It is not a lens I am particularly fond of, or use all that often. With the crop-factor it sort of gives me about as much reach as a 450mm on a film camera, but I rarely went that long, and a 70-210 was usually more than enough. On the electric-picture-maker, the swap over point at 55mm I found anoying; the kit 18-55 doesn't go telephoto 'enough' and the kit telephoto doesn't start wide enough... but I think thats a perenial grumble for many. The 55-200, is probably a good shout.... and a lens I looked at getting for the O/H, mainly because she's heavy handed, and tends to use one extremity of the other, then moan with the 300 zoomed right in, nothing stays in the frame long enough to press the button! Not having the extra then saves the debate or tendancy, and the 55-200 has shown a cracking performer for the cost... and as said, 70-210ish was always a very useful telephoto range for film, equivilent to approx 45-140mm when you do the crop-factor conversions... like I say, I miss that 10mm extra wide more than I apreciate the extra 60 or 160mm at the tele-end!
Pays your money, takes your chances.... but to cover as much as you can and go see, that legacy lens option comes back with a lot of plusses.
BUT, it is an adventure, and I have to say I have always wanted more 'wide' than I have more reach; and that wasn't so easily obtained via legacy lenses, where few but fish-eyes were ever even as wide as the 18mm shortest focal length of the Kit e-lens!
And for the sort of street-scape- and urban landscape you hint at, I suspect that more wide will probably be what you end up yearning for; they are certainly more challenging to work with, as packing so much scene into the frame, they don't give as much instant hit impact as a tele cropping the clutter and making the main subject big and prominent in the frame for the viewer.
Which begs the notion... he kit 18-55 is a very useful lens with a very useful range of zoom around the 'normal'.... and you can do an AWFUL lot in post, stitching shots to montage a wide-angle view, or cropping a wide angle to get a telephoto tightness...
Here and now? DO you really NEED to go buy any other lens?
Until you are hitting the buggers of what you can get with it might be just an expensive indulgence or worse, mistake.