(no subject)
I hate abandoned buildings. I think a lot of people do. I like building projects that are on 'brownbelt' land in towns - that sort of rejuvenation is usually popular with everyone. Usually though, this involves demolishing old buildings, and that can be prohibitively expensive.
I was our driving recently, and spotted several huge smoke stacks, no longer in use, beside a crumbling frame of a building. And I wondered what gives someone the right to tear such materials from the earth, and then just abandon them. How can someone claim land in such a way? A system which allows so much waste and destruction is certainly not sustainable, no matter how many trees you plant to 'offset your carbon footprint'. It is unlikely that those huge towers will ever be used again, and why would anyone bother tearing them down? Nobody will ever use that land again. The system needs more incentive to change.
So I wondered: What if constructors of particularly large or specialist buildings were required to put together an end-of-life plan, including setting aside an untouchable fund to pay for the deconstruction of the building? If the company went out of business, an administrator would then have the funds to take down the building and restore the land. If most of the building could be easily dis-assembled and re-sold, less money would be required. Perhaps tax exemptions could be made for other projects made entirely from recycled materials, giving an incentive to buy. If the building can be sold, the fund would transfer to the new user. And finally, if a big new build requires such an outlay, companies may look again at re-developing old buildings.
I think this is something that could start with the small number of big, significant constructions, and slowly be extended to all new construction - instilling the idea that we only ever borrow land for a short period in its history, and when we're done it's only fair to leave it as we found it.
Thoughts, comments and suggestions would be very welcome!
I was our driving recently, and spotted several huge smoke stacks, no longer in use, beside a crumbling frame of a building. And I wondered what gives someone the right to tear such materials from the earth, and then just abandon them. How can someone claim land in such a way? A system which allows so much waste and destruction is certainly not sustainable, no matter how many trees you plant to 'offset your carbon footprint'. It is unlikely that those huge towers will ever be used again, and why would anyone bother tearing them down? Nobody will ever use that land again. The system needs more incentive to change.
So I wondered: What if constructors of particularly large or specialist buildings were required to put together an end-of-life plan, including setting aside an untouchable fund to pay for the deconstruction of the building? If the company went out of business, an administrator would then have the funds to take down the building and restore the land. If most of the building could be easily dis-assembled and re-sold, less money would be required. Perhaps tax exemptions could be made for other projects made entirely from recycled materials, giving an incentive to buy. If the building can be sold, the fund would transfer to the new user. And finally, if a big new build requires such an outlay, companies may look again at re-developing old buildings.
I think this is something that could start with the small number of big, significant constructions, and slowly be extended to all new construction - instilling the idea that we only ever borrow land for a short period in its history, and when we're done it's only fair to leave it as we found it.
Thoughts, comments and suggestions would be very welcome!