Originally posted by gaweidert Not those but several groups try to preserve every house etc to retain the "character " of a village and this drives me nuts. How many Victorian or Georgian derelicts do we need to preserve? These groups fight like crazy to preserve a house or the way it looks but will not spend a dime to help maintain it. Heck they even dictate what color paint you can use. The so called "historic districts" come with great expense and the people who fight to get the designations often do not even live in them.
I thought that diversity was a good thing. I have no problem building a modern looking home next to a Georgian style house. If you want to preserve examples of the architecture then move samples to museums like Hessenpark in Germany of Dearborn Village in Michigan.
Should London Tower be preserved? It was, after all, a place of unbridled power and oppression. Each pyramid for the aggrandizement of one man. The Colosseum where executions were spectator sports, gladiators fought to the death and animals were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands all for the entertainment value. No one really knows the history of Machu Picchu so no comments there. Besides too expensive to tear down.
I think you're simply trying to get a rise out of me.
There are many reasons why the preservation of old buildings results in nicer neighbourhoods than replacing with new. The neat thing is that no-one is forced to buy a heritage building or in a heritage neighbourhood. If you prefer, you can buy a modern cookiecutter McMansion in most any new subdivision and be surrounded with equally new McMansions.
Some examples of why preservation makes sense:
- Most old buildings, provided they have not been left to deteriorate too far due to lack of maintenance, can be repaired fairly cost effectively. Once repaired, they will generally provide higher property values for their owners than an equivalent sized modern home. And, because they were originally built using simpler technology that new buildings, repairs can usually be undertaken by most any reasonably practical homeowner, without need to employ a specialist. As the home owner's own labour is free, that's most often the cheapest way for people to add value to their property.
- Most old buildings are built from far higher quality materials than most new buildings.
- A preserved neighbourhood will generally increase everyone's property values.
- Old buildings often provide an insight into behaviours of the past. Victorian houses, for instance, followed design ideals which we now find peculiar but which, at the time, made sense for their way of life. Most of those old houses can, with minor changes, function very well as modern homes.
- Old houses have better environmental credentials than new houses and need not be any less energy efficient than new homes, if renovated correctly.
- Old building provide a "written" history of design styles and construction materials far better than any textbook can.
- Our built environment is one of the key descriptors of our culture. Replace it all with modern and our history is gone.
- Once it's been demolished, it's gone forever. It can't be replaced or reconstructed in future when keeping old buildings become fashionable again. What we lose now can never be replaced. The materials are in most cases not available or, if available, so expensive that only the ultra-rich would be able to afford to recreate a historic building correctly.
- Preserving in place is far better than shifting the building to a Museum site. Buildings have an integral relationship with their original location and there's often archaeological finds to be made around old buildings. Once removed from it's original site, that rich history is gone.