Walkability/No demolition

The problem

Some cities are known to demolish perfectly good buildings in the name of walkability.

Ideally, this should be avoided, because:

There's already a housing shortage.
Materials & labor are not unlimited either.
Construction has an environmental footprint.
For the same cost & resources used, they could have built the new homes elsewhere and left the old ones intact. That would help more to increase the overall housing supply.

One approach to walkability: Add more housing to neighborhoods that are already walkable.
- This requires densification, which is often achieved by demolishing houses to make room for taller condo buildings.
- Neglects other approaches to walkability:
  - Bring more amenities to the suburbs
  - Create entirely new walkable neighborhoods
Gentrification
- In some cases, the total housing supply doesn't even increase at all; it just goes to the highest bidders.
Policy makers wanting to avoid sprawl but misunderstanding what makes sprawl a problem discussion TODO: elaborate; also discuss the general tradeoff: wastefulness of "demolish+rebuild", vs deforestation of "use more land" (note that housing's land footprint is nothing compared to agriculture)

Repurpose buildings (instead of rebuilding from scratch) 💬 discussion TODO: talk about examples: commercial-to-residential and vice versa, also how you can convert houses into denser housing without building a whole new building. Lastly, why people haven't done that already: cultural expectations that a building has to look a certain way (inside and out) to match its particular purpose - we need to think beyond that, and stop stigmatizing cheap solutions
- If a building isn't condemned, there's probably a solution that doesn't involve demolishing it.
Instead of trying to add more housing to the city core, bring walkability to the other residential areas.

This section has not been filled in yet.

You can leave a comment on the talk page.