3 ms·

> Where is the actual evidence that strict historical preservation actually matters? In all the historic places you visit and that, in some parts of the world,

by wklauss 11y ago

> Where is the actual evidence that strict historical preservation actually matters? In all the historic places you visit and that, in some parts of the world, add up to a significant amount GDP thanks to tourism or related activities. There are some intangible values as well as they help shape the history and evolve a community around specific places (think West Village, Manhattan for example). I know it can be frustrating and that sometimes is poorly implemented but historic preservation of places eventually pays off. Maybe not all of the landmarked buildings will pay off, but sure some of them will(not unlike startups in that regard). And what is not culturally important today might be a century form now, or viceversa. You are applying survivor bias. Think of all the historic places no longer with us because they were not deemed culturally relevant or properly protected in first place.

saosebastiao 11y ago
> In all the historic places you visit and that, in some parts of the world, add up to a significant amount GDP thanks to tourism or related activities. How did ancient Rome ever survive to the extent that it exists today if they didn't have historical preservation statutes? It has a lot more to do with protecting their buildings from angry invaders than it does with protecting their buildings from developers. In reality, developers have little innate interest in destroying the culturally valuable...it is too expensive. > And what is not culturally important today might be a century form now, or viceversa. You are applying survivor bias. Think of all the historic places no longer with us because they were not deemed culturally relevant or properly protected in first place. It is true, I'm applying survivor bias. But you are applying a bias of your own. Think of all the future historic places that won't exist because they never get built. At least with my bias we can reason that the buildings that were torn down were, at one point in time, more of a burden than they were worth. Can you imagine not having Independence Hall today because historic preservation statutes decided to preserve all the historic Chestnut Street homes that were torn down for it?
- wklauss 11y ago
  > It has a lot more to do with protecting their buildings from angry invaders Well, time changes. We no longer face the threats of the barbarian hordes of northern Europe but we have modern day speculators that will torn down anything for a profit and not think long term. And again with the culturally valuable. What is valuable today might not be years from now or viceversa, that's why deciding what should be protected usually requires quite a lengthy process. > Can you imagine not having Independence Hall today because historic preservation statutes decided to preserve all the historic Chestnut Street homes that were torn down for it? Or having it two blocks up from the current location? But listen, I'm not arguing that everything should be preserved for ever. And I don't know any preservation society that thinks in those terms. What I'm saying is that deciding what gets preserved and what does not is a tough call and a very complex issue. You asked where's the evidence that historic preservation, as a whole, matters. I'd argue its pretty evident. Yes you are right when you point out that the system can be abused but that doesn't diminish the importance of building preservation initiatives, specially in country that has a short history. Also, no such thing as survivor bias when applied to hypotheticals, for obvious reasons.
  - saosebastiao 11y ago
    > Well, time changes. We no longer face the threats of the barbarian hordes of northern Europe but we have modern day speculators that will torn down anything for a profit and not think long term. You don't think those existed in antiquity? Now that is some survivorship bias. > What I'm saying is that deciding what gets preserved and what does not is a tough call and a very complex issue. Of course it is. All I'm asking for is to let the decision be made by the people with the skin in the game: the owners. Otherwise you get committees overrun with people who see it as nothing more than a tool to send "fuck you" notices to developers. Without skin in the game, there is nothing stopping them from being abused as an anti-development tool, and to the detriment of our current culture and quality of life.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  > How did ancient Rome ever survive to the extent that it exists today They had a shitload of buildings, and they made them out of stone, and they made many of them to last, and also the city was essentially abandoned for hundreds of years.
morley 11y ago
> historic preservation of places eventually pays off. Historic preservation is no more than collecting, done by the government. There's no guarantee that what they collect will appreciate in value. For example, maybe they're preserving 1970's Kenner Star Wars toys, and maybe they're preserving the ones from 1999.
- wklauss 11y ago
  No guarantee, right. Just past experience. But even if there's no big payoff at the end, I'd argue it is important for the identity building process of a community or a nation. If 100 hundred years from now gov't finds out it has a worthless building, they can torn it down then.

by wklauss 11y ago

saosebastiao 11y ago

> In all the historic places you visit and that, in some parts of the world, add up to a significant amount GDP thanks to tourism or related activities. How did ancient Rome ever survive to the extent that it exists today if they didn't have historical preservation statutes? It has a lot more to do with protecting their buildings from angry invaders than it does with protecting their buildings from developers. In reality, developers have little innate interest in destroying the culturally valuable...it is too expensive. > And what is not culturally important today might be a century form now, or viceversa. You are applying survivor bias. Think of all the historic places no longer with us because they were not deemed culturally relevant or properly protected in first place. It is true, I'm applying survivor bias. But you are applying a bias of your own. Think of all the future historic places that won't exist because they never get built. At least with my bias we can reason that the buildings that were torn down were, at one point in time, more of a burden than they were worth. Can you imagine not having Independence Hall today because historic preservation statutes decided to preserve all the historic Chestnut Street homes that were torn down for it?

wklauss 11y ago
> It has a lot more to do with protecting their buildings from angry invaders Well, time changes. We no longer face the threats of the barbarian hordes of northern Europe but we have modern day speculators that will torn down anything for a profit and not think long term. And again with the culturally valuable. What is valuable today might not be years from now or viceversa, that's why deciding what should be protected usually requires quite a lengthy process. > Can you imagine not having Independence Hall today because historic preservation statutes decided to preserve all the historic Chestnut Street homes that were torn down for it? Or having it two blocks up from the current location? But listen, I'm not arguing that everything should be preserved for ever. And I don't know any preservation society that thinks in those terms. What I'm saying is that deciding what gets preserved and what does not is a tough call and a very complex issue. You asked where's the evidence that historic preservation, as a whole, matters. I'd argue its pretty evident. Yes you are right when you point out that the system can be abused but that doesn't diminish the importance of building preservation initiatives, specially in country that has a short history. Also, no such thing as survivor bias when applied to hypotheticals, for obvious reasons.
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  > Well, time changes. We no longer face the threats of the barbarian hordes of northern Europe but we have modern day speculators that will torn down anything for a profit and not think long term. You don't think those existed in antiquity? Now that is some survivorship bias. > What I'm saying is that deciding what gets preserved and what does not is a tough call and a very complex issue. Of course it is. All I'm asking for is to let the decision be made by the people with the skin in the game: the owners. Otherwise you get committees overrun with people who see it as nothing more than a tool to send "fuck you" notices to developers. Without skin in the game, there is nothing stopping them from being abused as an anti-development tool, and to the detriment of our current culture and quality of life.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
> How did ancient Rome ever survive to the extent that it exists today They had a shitload of buildings, and they made them out of stone, and they made many of them to last, and also the city was essentially abandoned for hundreds of years.

morley 11y ago

> historic preservation of places eventually pays off. Historic preservation is no more than collecting, done by the government. There's no guarantee that what they collect will appreciate in value. For example, maybe they're preserving 1970's Kenner Star Wars toys, and maybe they're preserving the ones from 1999.

wklauss 11y ago
No guarantee, right. Just past experience. But even if there's no big payoff at the end, I'd argue it is important for the identity building process of a community or a nation. If 100 hundred years from now gov't finds out it has a worthless building, they can torn it down then.