Comment 67102

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 30, 2011 at 12:50:23 in reply to Comment 67099

When was the last time "tearing it down" resulted in a building which was "greater" architecturally? Because fifty years of redevelopment in the core would argue otherwise.

If "great architecture" is to mean anything at all, it has to be able to endure the test of time. Building life expectancies of 30-50 years are antithetical to this idea. Hence the concrete Brutalist monstrosities which surround 100 Main on several sides.

If I thought there was much chance that whatever was built in the place of the Board of Ed was going to stand for a century or more, I might feel differently about this. If I thought new construction downtown in general was going to build anything which would stand as a legacy, I wouldn't be nearly as sour about leaving properties as vacant lots for a decade until they could amass capital and a plan. As it stands, though, there's little doubt that we'll see at least one more 80+ year old building crumble to the ground by the end of the year, and aren't likely to see any new Lister Blocks built soon.

"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