Preservation is very important in terms of historical significance. It is important to acknowledge the aspects of our past for future generations to understand the history of the area. However, just because something has been around for a while does not mean it is significant. I would agree with most of the recent posts that preservation is important, but not in the case of the proposed hotel. The current buildings might have some significance, but the facades have changed numerous times, and in my opinion are better off making way for something new. In this case it might be better to preserve the memory of the site than the site itself.
The original proposal would aid in bringing more modern architecture, and add more height to a city with a minimal skyline. 10 stories is not a skyscraper by any means, but I was excited to hear that any new building would be going up. A simple photograph and a plaque in the lobby would be more than enough preservation for me.
You make a really interesting point at the end, "A simple photograph and a plaque in the lobby would be more than enough preservation for me." I would definitely say that you are on the progressive side of development at least in this case. The question would be what is the importance of the photograph and the plaque. Why would we need or even want something to recall these buildings. Should the photograph document the buildings as they stand now at their final moment or should it be a historical photograph that documented the building in its heyday. Which would be more appropriate? Which would be more authentic? What would the plaque say?
ReplyDeleteAll really good thoughts about how we address these concerns regarding the built environment.