07-20-2017, 10:59 AM
(07-20-2017, 10:34 AM)panamaniac Wrote:(07-20-2017, 10:13 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: That's a very dangerous sentiment I'm very much against, preservation for the sake of preservation. I have fond memories of being in a foreign country and going on a visit to a farm. They were talking about building a new farmhouse to accommodate new family members, and would be getting rid of the old one, which he said was a quarter-millenia old. It wasn't in great or terrible shape, wasn't anything particularly noteworthy based on what he was saying, and the farmer's sense of providing jobs and food for people took priority over keeping something around because it had been around for some time resonated with me, and still does today.
I believe that you've misunderstood the D'Amato piece. She was simply commenting on the phenomenon of quickly forgetting the details of the "before" when a streetscape changes. I know I have often experienced it myself. Yes, it is "history slipping away", but D'Amato is, at most, waxing nostalgic about it.
This was my impression as well. The article was fairly positive IMO.
Ironically, some of what she "forgot" includes an "asian massage parlor" across the street from an elementary school.
But I agree, "preservation for the sake of preservation" can be a problem, but I don't think it's a big one, I think it is different than the "no change of any kind ever" position, which is far more common and problematic. But both pale in comparison to the "use heritage laws as justification to oppress and suppress groups we don't like".
Sometimes I wonder if heritage preservation is worth the risks of misuse.