English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

The question seems a bit vague. As older buildings deteriorate and get remodeled or demolished, focus should be spent on trying to produce "green" buildings. These will have longer lives of use and often cost less for upkeep. The drawback is more expense on the front side. Often developers are short sighted on these costs. The government should also encourage upward growth, not sprawl. And a continuity between buildings and areas which encourage people to be able to do everything in one area. This includes work, recreating, and live. These will help cut on the amount of time and energy used on travel. The notation of tearing down all our current buildings to do this is absurd though. The costs would be prohibitive at the very least. More green space is nice, and starting to become more popular again. But to over do the creating of green space in a city encourages sprawl due to the lack of space and demands of the plant life which would in the end be bad for the environment as well.

2006-10-03 03:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by Craig B 4 · 0 0

I think the government should demolish all the concrete stuffs from the places we call concrete forest or urban jungle and plants and trees must be raised with nature friendly buildings!
What you say?

2006-10-03 05:45:58 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor-Psycho 1 · 0 0

Encourage it

2006-10-03 05:38:18 · answer #3 · answered by Victor 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers