Botox injections used to be a secret forwomen in their 40s and 50s. But growing numbers ofwomen in their 20s and 30s are turning to “baby Botox,” or smaller doses that are intended to prevent aging rather than combat it.Baby Botox is just one intervention that doctors say younger people now frequently seek, and some view the trend with concern. Dr. Michelle Hure, a physician specializing in dermatology and dermatopathology, says younger patients aren’t considering the cost of procedures that require lifetime maintenance, and are expressing dissatisfaction with their looks to a degree that borders on the absurd.Hure traces the demand for “baby Botox” and other procedures to the start of the pandemic.“Everyone was basically chronically online,” she told Vox. “They were on Zoom, they were looking at themselves, and there was the rise of of TikTok and the filters and people were really seeing these perceived flaws that either aren’t there or are so minimal and just normal anatomy. And they have really made it front and center where it affects them. It affects their daily life and I really feel that it has become more of a pathological thing.”Hure spoke to Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the rise of “baby Botox” and her concerns with the cosmetic dermatology industry. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You told us about a patient that you saw yesterday, and you said you probably wouldn’t keep her on because her mentality really worried you. Would you tell me about that young woman?I had this patient who was mid-20s, and really a beautiful girl. Isee a lot of signs of aging on her face, but she was coming in for Botox. There wasn’t a lot for me to treat. And at the end of the session she was asking me, “So what do you think about my nasolabial folds?”Basically, it’s the fold that goes from the corner of your nose down to the corner of your mouth. It’s the barrier between the upper lip and your cheek, and when you smile it kind of folds. Of course, the more you age, the more of the line will be left behind when you’re not smiling. And she was pointing to her cheek as if there was something there, but there was nothing there. And so I had to tell her, “Well, I don’t see that, you’re perfect.” It’s a phantom nasolabial fold. It didn’t exist.That sort of mentality where someone is perceiving a flaw that is absolutely not there — providers need to say no. Unfortunately, they’re incentivized not to. Especially if you have a cosmetic office, if you’re a med spa, if you have a cosmetic derm or plastic surgery office, of course you’re incentivized to do what the patient wants. Well, I’m not going to do that. That’s not what I do.That means you may get paid for seeing her in that visit, but you’re not getting paid for putting filler in her face. I think what I hear you saying is other doctors would have done that.Absolutely. One hundred percent. I know this for a fact because many times those patients will come to my office to get that filler dissolved because they don’t like it. In the larger practices or practices that are private equity-owned, which is a huge problem in medicine, you are absolutely meant to sell as many products, as many procedures as possible. Oftentimes I was told to sell as much filler as possible, because every syringe is several hundred dollars. And then if they’re there, talk them into a laser. Talk them into this, talk them into that. Then you become a salesman. For my skin check patients, I’m looking for skin cancer. I’m counseling them on how to take care of their skin. I was told, “Don’t talk to them about using sunscreen, because we want them to get skin cancer and come back.”I was pulled out of the room by my boss and reprimanded for explaining why it’s so important to use sunscreen. And so this is why I couldn’t do it anymore. I had to start my own office and be on my own. I can’t do that. That goes against everything that I believe in, in my oath. Because there is potential harm on many different levels for cosmetic procedures.What are the risks to giving someone a cosmetic procedure that they don’t really need?This is a medical procedure. There is always risk for any type of intervention, right? What gets me is, like, Nordstrom is talking about having injections in their stores. This is ridiculous! This is a medical procedure. You can get infection, you can get vascular occlusion that can lead to death of the tissue overlying where you inject. It can lead to blindness. This is a big deal. It’s fairly safe if you know what you’re doing. But not everyone knows what they’re doing and knows how to handle the complications that can come about. Honestly, I feel like the psychological aspect of it is a big problem. At some point you become dependent, almost, on these procedures to either feel happy or feel good about yourself. And at what point is it not going to be enough? One of my colleagues actually coined this term. It’s called perception drift. At some point, you will do these little, little, incremental tweaks until you look like a different person. And you might look very abnormal. So even if someone comes to me for something that is legitimate, it’s still: Once you start, it’s going to be hard for you to stop. If you’re barely able to scrimp together enough to pay for that one thing, and you have it done, great. What about all the rest of your life that you’re going to want to do something? Are you going to be able to manage it?I wonder how all of this makes you think about your profession. Most people get into medicine, it has always been my assumption, to be helpful. And you’ve laid out a world in which procedures are being done that are not only not helpful, they could be dangerous. And you don’t seem to like it very much.This is why it is a smaller and smaller percentage of what I do in my office. I love cosmetics to an extent, right? I love to make people love how they look. But when you start using cosmetics as a tool to make them feel better about themselves in a major way, it’s a slippery slope. It should be more of a targeted thing, not making you look like an entirely different person because society has told you you can’t age. It’s really disturbing to me.See More: #baby #botox #psychology #cosmetic #procedures

Scene at UKREiiF 2025 outside the Canary bar UKREiiF is getting bigger by the year, with more than 16,000 professionals attending the 2025 construction conference in Leeds this week during three days of sunny weather, networking, panel discussions and robust amounts of booze. It has grown so big over the past few years that it seems almost to have outgrown the city of Leeds itself. A running joke among attendees was the varying quality of accommodation people had managed to secure. All of the budget hotels in the city were fully booked months in advance of the conference, with many - including at least one member of Parliament - reduced to kipping in bed and breakfasts of a questionable nature. Many were forced to stay in nearby towns including York, Wakefield and Bradford and catch the train to the conference each morning. But these snags served as ice breakers for more important conversations at an event which has come at a key pivot point for the industry. With the government on the brink of launching its 10-year industrial strategy and its new towns programme, opportunity was in the air. Networking events between government departments and potential suppliers of all sectors were well attended, although many discussion panels focused on the question of how all of this work would be paid for. And hanging over the conference like a storm cloud were the mounting issues at the Building Safety Regulator which are continuing to cause expensive delays to high rise schemes across the country. While many attendees eyed a huge amount of potential work to fill up pipelines, it was clear the industry is still facing some systemic challenges which could threaten a much-needed recovery following a long period of turmoil. How will the issues at the Building Safety Regulator be fixed? You did not even have to go inside an event titled “Gateways and Growing Pains: Tackling the Building Safety Act” to see how much this issue is affecting construction at the moment. The packed out tent was overflowing into the space outside, with those inside stood like sardines to watch a panel discussion about what has been happening in the high rise residential sector over the past year.  Audience members shared their horror stories of schemes which have been waiting for the best part of a year to get gateway 2 approval from the regulator, which is needed to start construction. There was a palpable sense of anger in the crowd, one professional describing the hold-ups which had affected his scheme as a “disgrace”. Others highlighted the apparent inconsistency of the regulator’s work. One attendee told how two identical buildings had been submitted to the regulator in separate gateway 2 applications and assigned to two separate technical teams for approval. One application had received no follow up questions, while the other had been extensively interrogated. “The industry should hold its head in shame with regard to what happened at Grenfell, but post that, it’s just complete disarray,” he said. More than 16,000 professionals attended the 2025 event While many are currently focusing on delays at pre-construction, others raised the looming gateway 3 approvals which are needed before occupation. Pareto Projects director Kuli Bajwa said: “Gateway 2 is an issue, but when we get to gateway 3, we’re committed to this project, money’s been spent, debt’s been taken out and week on week it’s costing money. It just keeps wracking up, so we need to resolve that with the regulator asap.” >> See also: Homes England boss calls on government to fix ‘unacceptably slow’ gateway 2 approvals Caddick Construction managing director for Yorkshire and the North East Steve Ford added: “I think where it will probably get interesting and quite heated I guess is at the point where some of these schemes get rejected at gateway 3, and the finger pointing starts as to why it’s not got through gateway 3.” Simon Latson, head of living for the UK and Ireland at JLL, offered a potential solution. “We will be dealing with the regulator all the way through the construction process, and you would like to think that there is a collaborative process where you get early engagement and you can say ‘I’m 12 weeks out from completion, I’m going to start sending you all of my completion documents, my fire alarm certificate’, and say ‘thanks very much that’s the last thing on my list’. That’s probably wishful thinking but that’s got to be a practical solution, as early engagement as possible.” How is the government going to pay for its infrastructure strategy? Ministers are expected to outline the government’s ten-year infrastructure strategy next month, outlining ambitions not only for transport but social infrastructure including schools and healthcare. At an event titled “A Decade of National Renewal: What Will This Mean for our Regions, Towns and Cities?”, a panel of experts including London deputy mayor Jules Pipe highlighted how much of this new infrastructure is needed to enable the government to achieve its housing targets. But how will it be funded? Tom Wagner, cofounder of investment firm Knighthead Capital, which operates largely in the West Midlands with assets including Birmingham City FC, gave a frank assessment of the government’s policies on attracting private sector investment. “There have been a lot of policies in the UK that have forced capital allocators to go elsewhere,” he said, calling for lower taxes and less restrictions on private finance in order to stop investors fleeing to more amenable destinations overseas.  “What we’ve found in the UK is, as we’re seeking to tax those who can most afford it, that’s fine, but unless they’re chained here, they’ll just go somewhere else. That creates a bad dynamic because those people are the capital providers, and right now what we need is capital infusion to foster growth.” The main square at the centre of the conference Pipe offered a counterpoint, suggesting low taxes were not the only reason which determines where wealthy people live and highlighted the appeal of cities which had been made livable by good infrastructure. “There are people living in some very expensive cities but they live there because of the cosmopolitan culture and the parks and the general vibe, and that’s what we have to get right. And the key thing that leads to that is good transport, making it livable.” Pipe also criticised the penny-pinching tendencies of past governments on infrastructure investment, including on major transports schemes like Crossrail 2 which were mothballed due to a lack of funds and a perceived lack of value added. “All these things were fought in the trenches with the Treasury about ‘oh well there’s no cost benefit to this’. And where is the major transport like that where after ten years people are saying ‘no one’s using it, that was a really bad idea, it’s never opened up any new businesses or new homes’? It’s absolute nonsense. But that seems to be how we judge it,” he said. One solution could be funding through business rates, an approach used on the Northern Line Extension to Battersea Power Station. But the benefits of this have been largely overlooked, Pipe said. “One scheme every ten or twenty years is not good enough. We need to do this more frequently”. What is the latest on the government’s new towns programme? Where are the new towns going to be built? It was a question which everybody was asking during the conference, with rumours circulating around potential sites in Cambridge of Plymouth. The government is set to reveal the first 12 locations of 10,000 homes each in July, an announcement which will inevitably unleash an onslaught of NIMBY outcries from affected communities. A large crowd gathered for an “exclusive update” on the programme from Michael Lyons, chair of the New Towns Taskforce appointed by the government to recommend suitable sites, with many in attendance hoping for a big reveal on the first sites. They were disappointed, but Lyons did provide some interesting insights into the taskforce’s work. Despite a “rather hairbrained” timescale given to the team, which was only established last September, Lyons said it was at a “very advanced stage” in its deliberations after spending the past few months touring the country speaking to developers, landowners and residents in search of potential sites. >> See also: Don’t scrimp on quality standards for new towns, taskforce chair tells housebuilders “We stand at a crucial moment in the history of home building in this country,” he said. The government’s commitment to so many large-scale developments could herald a return to ambitious spatial planning, he said, with communities strategically located close to the most practical locations for the supply of new infrastructure needed for people to move in. A line of tents at the docks site, including the London Pavilion “Infrastructure constraints, whether it’s water or power, sewage or transport, must no longer be allowed to hold back growth, and we’ve been shocked as we looked around the country at the extent to which plans ready to be advanced are held back by those infrastructure problems,” he said. The first sites will be in places where much of this infrastructure is already in place, he said, allowing work to start immediately.  An emphasis on “identity and legibility” is also part of the criteria for the initial locations, with the government’s design and construction partners to be required to put placemaking at the heart of their schemes. “ We need to be confident that these can be distinctive places, and that the title of new town, whether it’s an urban extension or whether it’s even a reshaping of an existing urban area or a genuine greenfield site, that it genuinely can be seen and will be seen by its residents as a distinct community.” How do you manage a working public-private partnership? Successful public partnerships between the public sector and private housebuilders will be essential for the government to achieve its target to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this parliament in 2029. At an event hosted by Muse, a panel discussed where past partnerships have gone wrong and what lessons have been learned. Mark Bradbury, Thurrock council’s chief officer for strategic growth partnerships and special projects, spoke of the series of events which led to L&Q pulling out of the 2,800-home Purfleet-on-Thames scheme in Essex and its replacement by housing association Swan. “I think it was partly the complex nature of the procurement process that led to market conditions being quite different at the end of the process to the start,” he said. “Some of the original partners pulled out halfway through because their business model changed. I think the early conversations at Purfleet on Thames around the masterplan devised by Will Alsop, the potential for L&Q to be one of the partners, the potential for a development manager, the potential for some overseas investment, ended up with L&Q deciding it wasn’t for their business model going forwards. The money from the far east never materialised, so we ended up with somebody who didn’t have the track record, and there was nobody who had working capital.  “By then it was clear that the former partnership wasn’t right, so trying to persuade someone to join a partnership which wasn’t working was really difficult. So you’ve got to be really clear at the outset that this is a partnership which is going to work, you know where the working capital is coming from, and everybody’s got a track record.” Muse development director for residential Duncan Cumberland outlined a three-part “accelerated procurement process” which the developer has been looking at in order to avoid some of the setbacks which can hit large public private partnerships on housing schemes. The first part is developing a masterplan vision which has the support of community stakeholders, the second is outlining a “realistic and honest” business plan which accommodates viability challenges, and the third is working closely with public sector officials on a strong business case. A good partnership is almost like being in a marriage, Avison Young’s London co-managing director Kat Hanna added. “It’s hard to just walk away. We’re in it now, so we need to make it work, and perhaps being in a partnership can often be more revealing in tough times.” #key #talking #points #ukreiif

Login or SUBSCRIBE to view this story Existing subscriber? LOGIN A subscription to Building Design will provide: Unlimited architecture news from around the UK Reviews of the latest buildings from all corners of the world Full access to all our online archives PLUS you will receive a digital copy of WA100 worth over £45. Subscribe now for unlimited access. Subscribe today Alternatively REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts #don039t #scrimp #design #new #towns