They're not obliged to. Conservation is a good on its own terms. They also didn't address carbon burdens, asbestos or diversity.

Look I get it, there's a housing crisis. If you want to argue we should make suburban Seoul with towers for 10km can I remind you le Corbusiers ideas were implemented widely in Birmingham and Manchester and were a disaster.

Maybe, the answer is to raid the green belt? Oh look, another "special interest" bun fight. More Barrett homes now! More ticky tacky. More all the same.

That’s only because they weren’t well connected (by design?) to the community vs how say the Soviets implemented theirs (one of the things they actually got right, despite the brutal aesthetics). Similar story for the US “projects” - completely isolated from ADLs (activities of daily living).

From all the places I’ve visited, I think the Dutch and Danish have figured out a nice middle ground for building mixed use human scale places.

Most people aren't calling for towers all around, but mixed development instead of single family housing.

My experience owning a protected structure soon taught me that heritage officers have zero interest in practicality and would rather see structures fall in to the ground as their owners nearly bankrupt themselves instead of actually allowing the building to be a useful structure in the modern world.

Which part was a disaster? High rise towers in Seoul and elsewhere seem to work after all, so if you're rejecting high rise towers on the basis that high rise towers didn't work in those situations, I'm not sure I follow your logic.

I believe you had this song in mind when you wrote your comment, didn't you ? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_2lGkEU4Xs