Thanks for the link.
I've got mixed feelings on this: on the one hand, it makes sense: since people are leaving areas for "greener pastures" (economically speaking), I can see putting some nature back into the area rather than just leave a wasteland of decaying buildings and other infrastructure.
On the other hand, I've always been frustrated by the unwillingness of the private and public center to make the effort to keep urban areas vital. Case in point, here in New York City you've had buildings that had been abandoned for years. People labeled "squatters" moved in and collectively renovated the buildings. All they needed was running electricity and water...the petitioned the city to have their renovations inspected by professionals and said they would pay utility rates. Instead, the city threw them out, and instead of punishing the negligent landlords, allowed them sell the ownership to businesses that turned the buildings into residency for yuppies.
Why can't we have both? Decent rents for working people, and buildings/infrastructure thats ecologically and ergonomically sound? Maybe I'm asking for too much, but given the offered alternatives, is my question that far fetched?
