I believe that if something is in need to be preserved, then preserve it. However, make sure everything is clear on the definition on what you plan to do with the land or building you plan to save. I think the words of preservations, reconstruct, and restoration is what confuses everyone the most when talking about saving a building or piece of land. Not everyone is clear on the use of the terms being thrown around out there.
However, there are different views on preserving. My view is pretty simple I think. Try to keep everything authentic; if you have to recreate a piece to make it complete to the period it came from then so be it. To me, you want everything real and how was it in the past; otherwise you are giving a false representation of what was.
The author of the articles did bring up a good point with saying “not everything that is old has to be saved”. I think buildings that hold a great value to the city and serve should stay preserved or at least restored. But there are buildings that are just old and falling apart. Those are the buildings that should be demolished and have that land used in a way that could benefit the city.
After seeing the actual buildings today, I feel it is pointless to keep those buildings. They look horrible. It's going to cost more to keep them than it is to just start over. I completely disagree with the decision that was made.
Authenticity. This is a huge challenge to determine what is authentic. As you say, "recreate a piece to make it complete to the period," what if that is impossible. What do you do at that point? Say you need to recreate a column, but it was made from old grow oak, which we don't have anymore.
ReplyDeleteKeeping the buildings seem pointless at this point, but where do we draw the line. How far is too far to save a building? How much money, time, and effort should it take?