Imagine you are a well intentioned urban planner for a large city.

You have been asked by the city to choose a location for a housing project.

You chose:

Land closer to the center of the city. It is more expensive, but residents would be closer to schools, pubic transport, and other services.

Because of higher rents in better parts of town and other factors, you find that you cannot afford to house all residents on that land.

You decided to:

relocate to cheaper land

You find that the land chosen is low lying and swampy. It requires more funding for strong foundations.

You chose to:

File for more funds from the city. 

The city agrees and you build the foundations with a stronger material. During a routine inspection, engineers tell you there are still some structural issues that may make the building unsafe in the future. However, the city has no more funds. 

You chose to: 

Continue building as planned. 

Building continues with only some minor hitches, which have made the units smaller than originally designed and caused sidewalks to be slightly weaker than intended. Residents move in. Although there are some complaints, mainly the isolation caused by the public transport system that hasn't been funded for expansion to the development, all seems to be going relatively well. 

Then a natural disaster occurs. Many residents are unable to evacuate on time because of the lack of public transportation. The building suffers intensive damage because of the structural weaknesses found earlier by engineers. 

The money allocated for recovery by the city is not enough to rebuild the development to house as many families or solve for the structural issues plaguing the building. 

You chose: 

to rebuild, but with the same issues

The development is rebuilt. Over the years, structural issues persist and the building falls in to disrepair. Living conditions continue to decline. The city refuses to prioritize its maintenence. 

Decades later, the city will decide to demolish the building. 

End.