Comment 68314

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 21, 2011 at 09:06:38 in reply to Comment 68297

There certainly is a preservation bias at play, and it would be foolish to ignore it. On the other hand - not all the buildings that've been knocked down were the terrible ones.

There are a lot of reasons old buildings tend to be "better". Our city has changed a lot - new technologies have reduced the economic effects of distance - meaning that space doesn't need to be used as widely. The same could be said of energy, and so they can use climate control instead of thick, heavy walls and well-placed windows. We've cut down the old-growth forests that long-ago covered this area and others - meaning a drop in the quality of framing and other woodwork. And of course, construction is now much cheaper and easier, so buildings don't need to stand for a century before it's cost-efficient to replace them.

I could go on. Newer does not always mean better.

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds