Pat,
I enjoy old architecture and cityscapes enough to be a preservationist, but...
I don't believe in freezing all redevelopment and living with the old stuff
exclusively.
1) Old does not mean good. Some of the old is simply poor quality buildings.
2) People's needs and desires change. The WWII vets returning to the USA,
along with the automobile, reshaped cities, housing, and work buildings.
3) Change is good and a necessary thing. Without this cycle of renewal,
there will be no diversity, no trial of new things, no growth and
development.
I've worked actively to try and slow the pace of change in my neighborhood.
We experience the tearing down of 1930-40's dwellings to make way for new
homes.
It can be quite disconcerting to see a new home of 2X size added to a
suburban block.
It can be disconcerting to see new business buildings replacing older home
uses.
And to your 560 year comment, Columbus 'discovered' the New World in 1492.
200 years ago there were no 'White Men' in this part of suburban Chicago.
At best, there was a small settlement on the shore of Lake Michigan, 25 miles
away.
This was the frontier, complete with log cabins and dirt floors.
No posh dwellings with classy ornamentation to be saved here.
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Classic buildings, though, shouldn't be as disposable as that. Destroying
old buildings is like destroying local history. Maybe that's why many North
Americans have little sense of history. The older buildings are continually
being replaced, so history is something you see in a book, not something you
walk by on the way to work, or a place where you meet your friends. I'd be
surprised if there are _any_ buildings in North America as old as 560 years
that were built by the Europeans and their descendants. (The ancient
pueblos and Mayan ruins aren't in cities, in daily use, like old buildings
in Europe are.)
