i reworked the buttons a bit so you can easily see what improvements are primary and which are secondary. if you have suggestions regarding the buttons feel free to add them
It's certainly clear, although it's quite aesthetically unappealing.
Also, I want to mention this...
While it's important that the game be balanced... It's also important the game make some degree of sense. It doesn't make any sense for all civilizations to be unhappy about "treehugging" when building mines/farms! It's the opposite of tree-hugging to build mines and forests, and it makes no sense whatsoever for it to make people unhappy.
If it made certain civilizations unhappy for a temporary period of time due to "too much change, too fast," that would make sense.
If dwarven races were upset about farms and happy about mines, that would make sense. If dwarfs got an unhappiness bonus for pastures that said something like, "There are bloody goats wandering through this stream I'm sifting for gold!" then that would make sense.
It would make sense if the elf races were upset about any improvement that removed a forest.
It would make sense if races that disliked "tree-hugging" were upset about groves or nature preserves or whatever.
It does not make any sense at all for the city to be unhappy about improvements. That's why they are "improvements" after all; because people feel that they are overall, an improvement.
As Pazyryk said on the beta forum thread about this: "I just can't come up with a rationalization for the happiness hit. I'm really very relaxed about the "realism" aspect of these games, but I do like to have some idea/rationalization for my imagination to work with. I wish you would consider some other solution, such as charging gold for improvements (I can believe in infrastructure costs)."