cities should evolve and change. Building should be torn down, roads/rail replaced or rerouted and new building fit to purpose should replace it. But they don'

cities should evolve and change. Building should be torn down, roads/rail replaced or rerouted and new building fit to purpose should replace it. But they don't. Cities are locked in to their current form for a variety of reasons (economic, historical etc.) The walkable city implementation should be the result of the demolition of an urban space and reconstructed in the vision of the 15 minute city. I take this view because I live in an old mill town in Massachusetts. Because of house hunting in the area, I would say a good half or more of the housing in town is really crap tenements with a thin layer of vinyl siding on it to make it look better. there is nothing you can do with these properties to make them energy-efficient or nice to live in without totally gutting the property down to including the exterior and roof. The area around these houses is not very livable as it's usually asphalt..everywhere. Not a spot of lawn or trees to be found. instead of building over green fields, the city should use these Brownfield properties as a land for the 15 minute village. yes, this would push people out of the existing houses so prior to that demolition, they should be construction of social housing like they have in Helsinki to make room for the people displaced. rebuild cities livable as defined NIMBYs and then you might find greater acceptance of what you propose to change.