The new million dollar question: When it comes to revitalizing cities, or finding places to put people, is it better to build or rebuild? The U.K. has opted in this case for the former, and has given the go-ahead to build four “eco-towns” with as many as 100,000 new houses. These houses will be built from scratch and will in theory be set up to run as sustainably as modern technology allows. Which is to say, quite. Though it’s unclear so far if it’ll work out that way.It sounds great on paper (it always does), but it’s got lots of opposition. One catch is that there are 800,000 empty houses in England that many locals would like to see put to use. “Why build 100,000 new ones?” goes the logic. Well, couple reasons: 1) It can cost a lot more to rehab an old house to make it energy efficient. 2) It doesn’t make for as good a PR/tourism/politicky campaign.To be fair, if this is done right, it could epitomize smart development. We’ve written a bunch about fixing cities as well as building them from scratch, and the pitfalls associated with both. I’m still on the fence. I think it’s all about execution-the proof is in the pudding. What do you think? Are there examples of smart development you can point to? Do you think rehab is always the way to go?
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

