Home Architecture Talk
Heritage conservation is a contentious issue in modern cities.?
Should historical architecture be preserved as it was or should it be upgraded to blend in with the surrounding modern buildings? Let's discuss.
Public Comments
- I'm not fond of old buildings myself, preferring "modern" but I can't see re-doing a building every few decades to keep it in style. That's not what I would call an "upgrade". As long at it is structurally sound and useful, keep it, IMHO.
- If they are of historical significance they should be preserved but brought up to safety codes. Most cities don't have the funds to keep them historically accurate while making them safe for visitors, so usually historical societies help with the fund-raising. Just because a building is old, doesn't mean the city or local government should take action to preserve it. You could bankrupt the nation trying to save them all. Historical conservation groups have ways of selecting what they see as significant and try to save as many as they can. There needs to be a balance between current need and historical preservation. Most cities find keeping older buildings historically accurate adds charm and character and is appreciated by the residents.
