Ok so you cover up the asbestos and build/renovate around it. People live, work, or whatever in this new building for years and a few start dieing of cancer. They find out that the company just covered up the asbestos instead of removing it, welcome to a large lawsuit. Still think it's worth it for the company to just cover up the asbestos?
After a certain point a building is just not salvagable. It has rotted away for a long time and at this point it would not be worth the large amount of money it would take to reconstruct the building in a way that would be safe to those that would inhabit it.
It's sad yes, but it makes sense. For everyone that complains about companies choosing to go the less costly route of demolishing and replacing the building instead of renovating, are you willing to foot the bill? Are you wiling to pay the huge amount of money it would take to renovate the building in order to keep "the history alive" even if said renovations would result in a building that probably wouldn't be as functional for your purposes as a new purpose build building would be?
Yes it's sad to see old buildings be demolished but sometimes practicality has to come in play. Sometimes it's just not worth the extra cost (since no one is willing or able to pay that extra cost) just for the sake of history. Really it's the original abandoning that needs to be stopped. Find a way to keep these old buildings in use even just as a way to keep the buildings from rotting while someone figures out what to use them for. But if a company can't afford to keep their property going and no one wants to or can buy it what choices are there?
Anytime someone comments on the colours in these places, saying horrible colour not very therapeutic, I wonder what would the colour need to be for you to call it therapeutic?
Red? Black? White? Creme? I can't think of any colour that would look therapeutic in these places, especially years after they have been abandoned.
After a certain point a building is just not salvagable. It has rotted away for a long time and at this point it would not be worth the large amount of money it would take to reconstruct the building in a way that would be safe to those that would inhabit it.
It's sad yes, but it makes sense. For everyone that complains about companies choosing to go the less costly route of demolishing and replacing the building instead of renovating, are you willing to foot the bill? Are you wiling to pay the huge amount of money it would take to renovate the building in order to keep "the history alive" even if said renovations would result in a building that probably wouldn't be as functional for your purposes as a new purpose build building would be?
Yes it's sad to see old buildings be demolished but sometimes practicality has to come in play. Sometimes it's just not worth the extra cost (since no one is willing or able to pay that extra cost) just for the sake of history. Really it's the original abandoning that needs to be stopped. Find a way to keep these old buildings in use even just as a way to keep the buildings from rotting while someone figures out what to use them for. But if a company can't afford to keep their property going and no one wants to or can buy it what choices are there?