Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
Or people like me who think it is important to reuse before demolition because once a building is gone, it is gone. I grew up in a city that erased much of its own history in the name of progress, now its downtown looks like it was built in the past 20 years, even though it is a city that has been here long before we were even a country.
The thing with this topic is that neither sound be taken lightly, we should not tear down buildings in the name of progress and we should not leave them be in the name of preservation. In other words, we shouldnt be reckless with our past.
|
As before, I agree with you. However, I think you misunderstand my stance. I'm all for the preservation of structures that are significant, were/are architecturally innovative, especially beautiful, or have some sort of noteworthy history. Preserving entire
districts is another story. Manhattan in particular cannot afford to preserve all of SoHo, for example, just because it is old, anything worthy can and will be preserved, but we cannot fall into a short-sighted state of mind where we keep things just because they exist.