3 ms·
> Most of the popular vacation places in the world are historic/old sites. No, they're the remains of historic/old sites that were left after people of yore to
by gridlockd 8y ago
> Most of the popular vacation places in the world are historic/old sites.
No, they're the remains of historic/old sites that were left after people of yore tore down everything else to build anew.
You don't have to preserve 100% of the "old city" to get a glimpse into an era, just like you don't have to preserve 100% of the city wall just to show that once upon a time, city walls were a thing.
> If we tear down everything old to put up cheaper, more efficient buildings are we necessarily better off?
You don't have to tear down everything in San Francisco, but most of it has little to no "historic value".
- moorhosj 8y agoNot everything is about San Francisco, even if HN wants to think otherwise. Plenty of other cities have historic buildings with their own value, Chicago bungalows are an example. They represent a point in time and are still viable structures for today’s families. Places like Cinque Terra, Istanbul and Cartagena are popular specifically because they have been preserved and are not just remains.
- gridlockd 8y ago> Not everything is about San Francisco, even if HN wants to think otherwise. Perhaps, but if we're talking about bulldozing and rebuilding the place to get rent down, San Francisco is at the top of the list.
- moorhosj 8y agoOr you could build higher. For reference, San Fran has 26 skyscrapers and 900k people. Chicago has 123 skyscrapers and 2.7 million people.