Canada

I guess "Temporary Housing for Workers is Temporary" doesn't make a sufficiently clickbait-y headline.

You've got a bunch of buildings, too large to be easily moved, in an awkward location where they're not very useful. You can't sell them because nobody wants them. So your options are to bulldoze them or let them decay in place. Period.

The article can't even seem to decide whether the disposal of these buildings is objectionable for environmental reasons or because it's a "waste of taxpayer money". (My guess is that the latter isn't true and that building them to minimum standards with the intention of writing them off was the cheapest thing to do at the time.) Should the environmental issues be more thoroughly considered for future, similar construction? Yes, but that doesn't help with the buildings that are already there.