5 ms·

Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile. Why? Humans conform nature to our needs. If we need a better building, why shouldn't we

by palish 16y ago

Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile. Why? Humans conform nature to our needs. If we need a better building, why shouldn't we tear down an old one? All of the previous building's history will remain documented in, say, Wikipedia. This is probably just the worldview of an inexperienced kid though. (This is an honest question, not a statement of opinion.)

projectileboy 16y ago
I agree, but what's considered valuable and what isn't is just fashion more often than not. And once the building is torn down, it's too late to reconsider.
- palish 16y ago
  That's a good point. I'm just wondering why an old building should be preserved at all. (Honestly, why?)
  - arethuza 16y ago
    For me old and ancient buildings provide the soul of our cities - providing a tangible connection with the many generations of our ancestors. Of course, it helps that I live in a beautiful and old city (though hardly ancient compared to some) - as I write this I can look up at a castle perched on the plug of an extinct volcano, parts nearly a thousand years old, and think that this is really rather a nice place to live and work. I suggest you walk the streets of Rome or Istanbul, sit in the center of an Egyptian pyramid or wonder at the stone houses of Skara Brae and then consider what the value of "old buildings" are.
    - palish 16y ago
      That's really cool. A city with a castle on a volcano? Which city is that?
      - kenver 16y ago
        I think it's Edinburgh, it's built on an extinct volcano though. It's probably a health and safety requirement.
        arethuza 16y ago
        Correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle There are a few good reasons that the science of geology was pretty much started here :-)
brc 16y ago
Everything in the world has a U-shaped value curve. Most valuable when it is new, at some point it loses value, may even become worthless. Down the track, it will become priceless and irreplaceable. Note 'value' here isn't strictly monetary, it can be cultural as well. Dropping buildings in the midst of the U never gives things the chance to recover and move past fashion. Most buildings discarded are due to the design being old and out of date. But old buildings in a city plant the cities history in time and allow it to tell a story. Remember that 'Gothic' cathedrals were so named because the term was in regular use as a description of something vulgar. The Notre Dame in Paris was at one stage due for demolition until the story of Quasimodo re-inspired the public to keep it - the restoration is still ongoing. Buildings can be re-purposed and still keep their charm. The mistake is in discarding things just because they are old. It's very true that not all old things are worth keeping, but the benefit of the doubt must go to the building until the current fashion has moved into the past. Also, in the case of Berlin, a lot of damaged structures have been reinforced and kept standing as they were at the end of the war. It reminds the city of what can happen if continual efforts towards peace are not made. These scars on the landscape are a constant reminder of the cities turbulent past, and help develop a sense of the story of the city while walking around. Buildings are the ultimate encapsulator of society - it's where we live, die, make decisions and create history. As such they have a special importance in being kept to tell that story to newcomers.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Much of the Northeast has this flavor. I dunno if you've ever been to the Boston area, but many of the buildings have this same sense of history to them. In the leather district, you've got former tanning factories which became porn studios which became software offices and yuppie lofts. In Maynard, you have old textile mills from the industrial revolution, which became DEC in the 50s and 60s, which became Monster.com in the dot-com boom of the 90s, which are now used for web2.0 startups and consultancies. In Lowell, you still see the old textile mills and canals alongside the remnants of the Wang Labs towers and newer businesses. From what I know of NYC, it's much the same, with bohemian lofts where old tenements once stood. That's one of the things I miss most about New England, having moved out to California. Here, everything is cookie-cutter suburbia, built in a hurry during the 70s and 80s. There's none of the charm or history of the Boston area. I can walk around downtown Lowell and say "This is a charming city, even if it's a little economically depressed." I can't really say the same about San Jose, even though it's cleaner, safer, and much more well-off.
jacquesm 16y ago
The one thing I always hear Americans say when they visit this side of the Atlantic is that there 'is so much history here'. And with space at a premium in a large part of the cities here the urge to tear down and rebuild is just as large or larger than it is in the US. But I think that it goes deeper than that. Some of the buildings are so old that they should have fallen down long ago, it's just that there is always somebody that thinks that to repair it is the better course than to throw it down. Having a lot of historical buildings around you and near you sets the stage and it would feel unnatural to remove one of them and replace it with some modern house. When an old farmhouse burns down it usually gets rebuilt. A big part of this is that all over europe there are heritage commissions that have a keen eye for what is and what is not of historical value and a relatively large amount of money is pumped in to maintaining those buildings that are deemed valuable. It isn't rare at all to see a 16th century building where I live (nl) and I know a couple (churches, mostly) that are older than 800 years. For me the main reason not to tear it down is that destruction is easy, creation is not. By respecting that which was created by those that came before you get a deeper appreciation for you place in the world. Rather than document what the Sistine Chapel looks like and tearing it down (extreme example, ok), we have the original to look at, which gives a completely different sense of perspective on history. There is a reason why millions of tourists flock here to see these things with their own eyes, an image of a thing is not a replacement for the thing. That goes for buildings, but it also goes for other works of art.
ahoyhere 16y ago
Come stay in Europe for a while. You'll see what we (Americans) are missing. I, for one, love living in a >100-year-old apartment house with 3 ft thick walls and antique wavy glass windows. On Sunday, we took a little trip to the countryside and roamed around a big castle built in 1100.

by palish 16y ago

projectileboy 16y ago

I agree, but what's considered valuable and what isn't is just fashion more often than not. And once the building is torn down, it's too late to reconsider.

palish 16y ago
That's a good point. I'm just wondering why an old building should be preserved at all. (Honestly, why?)
- arethuza 16y ago
  For me old and ancient buildings provide the soul of our cities - providing a tangible connection with the many generations of our ancestors. Of course, it helps that I live in a beautiful and old city (though hardly ancient compared to some) - as I write this I can look up at a castle perched on the plug of an extinct volcano, parts nearly a thousand years old, and think that this is really rather a nice place to live and work. I suggest you walk the streets of Rome or Istanbul, sit in the center of an Egyptian pyramid or wonder at the stone houses of Skara Brae and then consider what the value of "old buildings" are.
  - palish 16y ago
    That's really cool. A city with a castle on a volcano? Which city is that?
    - kenver 16y ago
      I think it's Edinburgh, it's built on an extinct volcano though. It's probably a health and safety requirement.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        Correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle There are a few good reasons that the science of geology was pretty much started here :-)

brc 16y ago

Everything in the world has a U-shaped value curve. Most valuable when it is new, at some point it loses value, may even become worthless. Down the track, it will become priceless and irreplaceable. Note 'value' here isn't strictly monetary, it can be cultural as well. Dropping buildings in the midst of the U never gives things the chance to recover and move past fashion. Most buildings discarded are due to the design being old and out of date. But old buildings in a city plant the cities history in time and allow it to tell a story. Remember that 'Gothic' cathedrals were so named because the term was in regular use as a description of something vulgar. The Notre Dame in Paris was at one stage due for demolition until the story of Quasimodo re-inspired the public to keep it - the restoration is still ongoing. Buildings can be re-purposed and still keep their charm. The mistake is in discarding things just because they are old. It's very true that not all old things are worth keeping, but the benefit of the doubt must go to the building until the current fashion has moved into the past. Also, in the case of Berlin, a lot of damaged structures have been reinforced and kept standing as they were at the end of the war. It reminds the city of what can happen if continual efforts towards peace are not made. These scars on the landscape are a constant reminder of the cities turbulent past, and help develop a sense of the story of the city while walking around. Buildings are the ultimate encapsulator of society - it's where we live, die, make decisions and create history. As such they have a special importance in being kept to tell that story to newcomers.

nostrademons 16y ago
Much of the Northeast has this flavor. I dunno if you've ever been to the Boston area, but many of the buildings have this same sense of history to them. In the leather district, you've got former tanning factories which became porn studios which became software offices and yuppie lofts. In Maynard, you have old textile mills from the industrial revolution, which became DEC in the 50s and 60s, which became Monster.com in the dot-com boom of the 90s, which are now used for web2.0 startups and consultancies. In Lowell, you still see the old textile mills and canals alongside the remnants of the Wang Labs towers and newer businesses. From what I know of NYC, it's much the same, with bohemian lofts where old tenements once stood. That's one of the things I miss most about New England, having moved out to California. Here, everything is cookie-cutter suburbia, built in a hurry during the 70s and 80s. There's none of the charm or history of the Boston area. I can walk around downtown Lowell and say "This is a charming city, even if it's a little economically depressed." I can't really say the same about San Jose, even though it's cleaner, safer, and much more well-off.

jacquesm 16y ago

The one thing I always hear Americans say when they visit this side of the Atlantic is that there 'is so much history here'. And with space at a premium in a large part of the cities here the urge to tear down and rebuild is just as large or larger than it is in the US. But I think that it goes deeper than that. Some of the buildings are so old that they should have fallen down long ago, it's just that there is always somebody that thinks that to repair it is the better course than to throw it down. Having a lot of historical buildings around you and near you sets the stage and it would feel unnatural to remove one of them and replace it with some modern house. When an old farmhouse burns down it usually gets rebuilt. A big part of this is that all over europe there are heritage commissions that have a keen eye for what is and what is not of historical value and a relatively large amount of money is pumped in to maintaining those buildings that are deemed valuable. It isn't rare at all to see a 16th century building where I live (nl) and I know a couple (churches, mostly) that are older than 800 years. For me the main reason not to tear it down is that destruction is easy, creation is not. By respecting that which was created by those that came before you get a deeper appreciation for you place in the world. Rather than document what the Sistine Chapel looks like and tearing it down (extreme example, ok), we have the original to look at, which gives a completely different sense of perspective on history. There is a reason why millions of tourists flock here to see these things with their own eyes, an image of a thing is not a replacement for the thing. That goes for buildings, but it also goes for other works of art.

ahoyhere 16y ago

Come stay in Europe for a while. You'll see what we (Americans) are missing. I, for one, love living in a >100-year-old apartment house with 3 ft thick walls and antique wavy glass windows. On Sunday, we took a little trip to the countryside and roamed around a big castle built in 1100.