3 ms·
If we took things to the absolute extreme and tore it all down? Yes we would be better off. I don't think the current value of historic sites outweighs the de
by TheOperator 7y ago
If we took things to the absolute extreme and tore it all down? Yes we would be better off. I don't think the current value of historic sites outweighs the deadweight. This is coming from a North American perspective though.
It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.
- moorhosj 7y agoYou are right that this is a very American perspective. Maybe we could learn something from societies that have been around much longer and tend to care more about their past. ==It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.== Or they have historical value specifically because they were built to last. Obviously, we wouldn’t know that unless we allow them to last.
- TheOperator 7y agoCaring about the past is not the same as paying for the upkeep of a historic museum that costs as much as 3 museums when the historic museum was actually kind of a dump. The status quo is goddamned rediculous. If I had to choose my position it would be less broad protection of historic buildings. However if I have to choose one extreme or the other I see homelessness exploding where I live and a bunch of money spent on bullshit. We're not talking about preserving the Sistine Chapel here.