Comment 37220

By adrian (registered) | Posted January 20, 2010 at 22:24:52

Fascinating and well-written article.

This article, and the one you wrote prior to it, both seem to make the same point: if the world were a different place, the fate of the Century would also be different.

But isn't that kind of obvious?

Books - the physical ones, made of paper - are also heading towards extinction. Most people read fewer than one book per year. E-books are increasingly popular. The end result may be that our libraries are no longer as needed as they once were. But if people purchased our libraries and then let them collapse, would it really be the fault of the people who read less?

The Century was a building worth saving that could have been used for a number of purposes, such as for condos, which was the supposed intention of its owner. That he did not build condos and instead let the building decay to the point of collapse is not because the 1940s were better for cinema than the 2000s.

I agree with you that there are more factors to consider than simply the behaviour of the owner, but I think it's a stretch to say that television viewing habits are the culprit here. Times change. Buildings, and their owners, need to change with them.

More on that in a separate article, perhaps.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds