Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp
But it's not the job of most developers, so why expect them to? Some do it as a business model but it's rare and the end product is pricey. Developers buy an asset - so can preservationists.
|
im not saying its their job, but just because you CAN do something dosent mean you should. we all need to take on a greater responsibility to preserve for future generations what prior generations preserved for us. architecture, like all good art, has the ability to speak across time. what do we want to say to the future? that we squandered a rich and unique architectural heritage in pursuit of nothing other than profit? that we were capable of being that short sighted despite similar mistakes already having been made, which we had the opportunity to learn from?
and if developers cant resist the temptation, then we need stronger preservation laws. theres simply no reason to be losing these well maintained, well built homes. say what you will about increased density, but somehow our city served a million additional residents than we have today with this stock quite adequately.
and it goes beyond aesthetics into environmental responsibility as well. its a completely wasteful practice, not only in raw materials (many of which are superior to those used today, and no longer attainable), but also in all the sweat, blood, and education that our forefathers poured into our built environment.
im not against new development in the least, but i am 100% when it includes these sorts of losses.