Is it more useful to renovate old facilities or to build new ones? According to some, it is more relevant to build new urban facilities than regenerating the old ones. By contrast, other people do not share this vision. Personally, I believe that both opinions are noteworthy, although I think that everything depends on the plans of the city and which is the state of its buildings. Certainly, there are great benefits in erecting new facilities such as museums or sport centres. By doing this, you can widen the public offer of activities for citizens and, change the image of the city. Moreover, it is often cheaper than renovating the old structures, especially over the long period. A good example can be seen in my town, Pagani, in Italy. Despite few resources, it built a new public library in the square of the city, that now is source of attraction for young people. The authorities had considered that to restore the old one would not have been convenient, due to its terrible condition. Nevertheless, in some occasions it can be useful to renovate the existing facilities in order to re-think the city. Regenerating these structures, whenever it is possible, today is an opportunity for doing city-branding. Indeed, some people state that cities can obtain fame by just improving and transforming its public heritage. An interesting example is given by the city of Bilbao, in Spain, that in 80’s transformed almost all its unused industrial spaces and old cultural facilities in modern ones. In the last few years, the city has increased his attractiveness thanks to this change. Thus, both views are equally valid. As shown by examples, the success of the interventions is tied to the ability to recognize the utility of renovating or building. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the situation case by case, paying attention to buildings characteristics and, clearly, the future perspective of the city. Good afternoon. Thank you as always for your corrections.

Is it possible to be economically successful and have a clean environment? According to some, a country can be both wealthy and environmental friendly. By contrast, others state that these two goal cannot be combined. Generally, the former thinks that, nowadays, there is the opportunity to economically grow by acting in a sustainable way, whereas the latter that one excludes the second. Between the two, the first seems more likely, because sustainability will pay off over the long-term. Those who believe that is possible to be economically successful and have a clean environment say that renewable energies are source of business. Indeed, some countries which have been converted their energy system over the last decades are now richer than before. One example of this are the Scandinavian countries, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which have dramatically reduced their emissions and invested in hydroelectric or wind energy. These country are continuing to be among the wealthiest of the world and they are even improving their economic performances. Nevertheless, as the counterpart points out, there are nations richer than Scandinavian ones, which are increasing more rapidly their GDP. Some of these are the emerging countries like India, China or Saudi Arabia, which are known for their polluted environment due to massive emissions. People who argue that the two aims are not compatible say that if these countries moved to renewable energies, they would not produce so much. This is a noteworthy reflection, however, this growing cannot long enough, because of limited resources. Thus, some people believe that it should be followed the example of Scandinavia countries, that they have both improved their environment and their economic power. The opposite position, instead, says that the most rocketing economies are those based on a strategy which does not care of the environment. The last statement is true, but it will not work forever so. As a consequence, for being economically successful for a long time, you should pay attention to renewable energies and, hence having the goal of a clean environment. ----- Good morning everyone. Thank you in advance, as always.

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is very important There are some places in the world where people prefer to buy a home instead of renting one. In these cases, owning a home is often considered crucial to lead a good life. Clearly, everything depends on personal choices and the cultural background, however one of the most likely reason of this is that buying a home is synonymous of stability and certainty. I partly share this position, because it can sometimes trigger unpleasant reactions in the real estate market, thus damaging the future of the potential tenants. As introduced, some countries are characterized by high rates of home-owners. One of this is Italy, where the percentage of them is just over 70, as recently shown by an Eurostat research. The reasons behind this phenomenon are at least two. The first is that houses in Italy are considered as a heritage which can be inherited in future by grandchildren. In this way, a certain grade of economic stability will be guaranteed for the family in future. The second is a cultural one. The number of owners is now so high that renting an apartment instead of buying is considered as a not suitable solution in any case, thus influencing the choices of the new families. In light of this, undoubtedly, owing a home can be intepreted as a form of richness, because constitutes an ever-present future support. However, not all that glitters is gold. Indeed, it should be taken in account the consequences on the entire housing market as well. In a context like this, it is not simple for who decides to rent an apartment to find suitable and affordable solutions. Even in this case, Italy represents an useful example. In Italy, the most of the market demand aspires to buy an house with the consequence that most of available ones will be used in that way. This not only widely reduces the proportion of house among which to choose, but also produces the effect of increasing prices of them, both for buying and, in particular, renting. The unavoidable consequence is that who was interested in renting will decide to change idea and to start searching for buying a home. This will produce a vicious circle. By summarizing, there are some countries in the world like Italy where being owner is considered an important step to do in order to build the future of the family. Moreover, this is seen as a symbol of safety. This is certainly reasonable. Nevertheless, there are some problematic effects: one of these is that the housing market results conditioned.