3 ms·
Sure... but why preserve this?
by lotyrin 8y ago
Sure... but why preserve this?
- charlesism 8y agoBecause it's distinctive. It's common for people to hate an architectural trend, that has only recently fallen out of vogue, only later to come to admire it.
- Nasrudith 8y agoShouldn't that be a matter of documentation in the first place instead of just keeping structures indefinitely? It reminds me of the Metropolitan Sepulchre plan in the 19th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Sepulchre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Sepulchre). While they went with garden cemeteries instead I believe the important point is that cities are for the living and the now and not the past. I personally think that there may be a value to keeping the old around but just mere archivism shouldn't be a reason. If people actually visit it frequently enough certainly keep it but if it is just for the information, we have books for that.
- charlesism 8y agoFirst I've heard of the Metropolitan Sepulchre. I very much enjoyed the link. Shouldn't that be a matter of documentation in the first place instead of just keeping structures indefinitely? There has to balance between razing the ruins of Pompeii, and turning every modern strip mall into a heritage site. Where that balance ought to be is beyond me. Who knows what will interest future generations? we have books for that. I don't know if books are a satisfying substitute. Down the road, when VR is higher quality, that would probably suffice.
- charlesism 8y agocorrection: I've never heard of the Metropolitan Sepulchre