For houses that have been condemned and abandoned, isn't better to just tear down those wasted useless?

Question

buildings instead of just leaving them there to rot?

Think about the environment, if those piles are toxic then isn't better to just demolish them so that they aren't around?

Also you wouldn't homeless people and drug addicts residing there which could be dangerous for society since no one thinks of going into abandoned and condemned buildings no one would be aware of the homeless people and drug addicts that are inside these buildings.

Also, for safety reasons not having those junk buildings would be better because that way no one would end up getting hurt if they had an idea of actually going in there.

Answer 1

Yes its a good suggestion.

http://www.skimmygupta.blogspot.com/

Answer 2

There are many reasons for both saving and destroying

condemned and abandoned buildings.  

In the end it boils down to the specifics of the situation. Is it economical to repair the buildings to code or not.

Most building codes try to be fair to both the community and the owners of the property  and have set methods to enforce those codes .  Once condemned a building is on the way to being repaired or removed both outcomes should be fine with the community.

Many times code enforcement only acts on complaints so you should file a complaint if a building needs to be inspected for code problems.

Answer 3

After a certain time frame, they are torn down by order of the City or County.

Answer 4

Good  idea

Answer 5

Buildings can be condemned for many reasons.

Some big, some little.

To just blindly tear down any condemned structure without

further consideration would be foolish and wasteful.

Answer 6

yes, it is the best idea, but it's very expensive... the city I live in does tear down like 50 houses a year that are condemned, but it costs millions of dollars just to tear down that many.