03-12-2022, 09:01 PM
(03-12-2022, 08:49 PM)ac3r Wrote: Locally, I suppose nowhere has faced that yet and likely never will. But it does happen in cities all the time. As I mentioned, once it's gone it's gone. It's important to preserve what we can, whether it's individual buildings or just the fabric of certain neighbourhoods. I mean what charm would downtown Cambridge (Galt) have if we razed all the old stone buildings for new ones? We'd lose that identity. Thankfully, it's through heritage preservation that have still been able to maintain its atmosphere. Change will come to Cambridge too, but it's important to hold on to what we can, while we can. It's a delicate thing to manage the old and new parts of cities.
If we came and razed Galt and built something new, we'd have .... something new. Perhaps something vibrant, alive, with it's own community, building it's own history.
This is an extreme example, and I'm not suggesting we do that, but the point is, for the people who would live in that community it wouldn't be "destroyed".
What you talk about is change, not "destruction" or at least not in any more meaningful way than the nature of the word "change" implies.
The word "destroyed" is used to invoke all sorts of horrible hellscapes, because that is what people who don't like change envision. We should try and influence change to be something we like, but "holding onto what we can" just implies the goal is to arrest and avoid change as much as possible. That is foolish at best.