Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSac
Why would I be surprised at that?
|
If your argument is that preservationists don't have perspective because they don't travel, then I assume that you'd be surprised, because we do travel, and we have our own perspective.
Yes, cities like Paris have 1200 year old buildings. Sacramento doesn't. The oldest building we have isn't even 200 years old! But in no way does that mean that we shouldn't take steps to preserve our historic buildings, any more than the fact that there are 2000-3000 year old buildings in Greece or Egypt means that the 1200 year old buildings in Paris aren't worth saving.
Many folks here seem convinced that I want to save every old building. This isn't true! I think every old building deserves some consideration, to look at its role in the city's history (keeping in mind that we're a 150 year old city, not an ancient European city) and its present-day role. Sometimes, that means the building has to go--but they all deserve, at least, some consideration and investigation.
During our "urban renewal" era, we didn't have Haussman--we had a whole different crowd, who looked at the multi-story, mixed-use, transit-accessible and walkable neighborhood right by the river and declared it "blight." They destroyed it utterly, and scattered the community that lived there. That destruction had effects throughout the city: it killed off the remaining businesses on K Street, and contributed to the growth of sprawling suburbs through destruction of central-city housing.
Why did it happen? Development without forethought. I'd rather not repeat that mistake, even if it means (horrors!) leaving a funky old wooden building standing a while longer.
That's my perspective.
Threaded Mode