3 ms·
> Which is why you only find "reused iconic buildings" in parts of the city that are now more run-down. This isn't true at all - city centres often have protec
by chrisseaton 4y ago
> Which is why you only find "reused iconic buildings" in parts of the city that are now more run-down.
This isn't true at all - city centres often have protection for their historic iconic buildings. In somewhere like central London the majority of buildings are reused iconic buildings. You'll find McDonalds locations in Georgian town-houses for example.
- delecti 4y agoIsn't your example the opposite situation? You're talking about an active McDonalds in a non-McDonalds structure, you replied to a comment talking about a non-McDonalds in a visibly McDonalds structure. In your example, the McDonalds had to make do with the existing building which they aren't allowed to change. In the other example, non-McDonalds have to make do with an un-renovated McDonalds structure which they can't afford to change. You aren't providing a counter example, you're just talking about something different.
- chrisseaton 4y agoI don’t think any purpose-built McDonalds could be described as ‘iconic’ architecture?
- bombcar 4y agoIconic as literally being an "icon" of the company - the same as the Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc "unique building silhouette". Things as documented by: https://twitter.com/utbaph?lang=en https://twitter.com/utbaph?lang=en A McDonalds that is built into Westminster Abbey may be part of an iconic building, but the McDonalds isn't Iconic (nor is the one on the Champs-Élysées).
- majormajor 4y agoGive it 100 years so that there's enough people nostalgic for it around. Or, even, you don't have to! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_McDonald%27s_restaurant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_McDonald%27s_restaurant "Along with its sign, it was deemed eligible for addition to the National Register of Historic Places in 1984, although it was not added because the owner objected"