On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Lester Kenyatta Spence wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Kent williams wrote:
>
> > To say that there are ruins in Detroit is no different than saying
> > that there are ruins in Paris and Rome. They testify about an age
> > that no longer exists. It isn't to imply that the place is dead, just
> > that there is an architectural memory of things that no longer exist.
>
> How old are the ruins in Paris and Rome? What age do the ruins in Paris
> and Rome hark to? Now, what age do the "ruins" in Detroit hark to?
>
>
They're a bit older. The Detroit ruins are very new. I'm not arguing
with you really, I'm saying that Detroit is just as alive as Rome or Venice,
moreso probably, ruins or no ruins. Living in the presence of the past
is the operative condition, no less Detroit than London.
