Re:Owner who demolished famed San Francisco house must build...
by rayiner on Sunday December 16, 2018 @07:35PM
(#18696143)
> Do you not see any value in preserving our past for future generations?
Book, art, etc.? Sure. Saving one painting doesn’t stop others from being made. Buildings and the like are different. Each building that’s “protected” robs future generations of real estate that could be put to higher value uses.
My office is in the Watergate. Aside from being sinfully ugly, the historical preservation status of the building makes it impossible to redevelop a high-value piece of land (near transit and the water) into a dense walkable neighborhood. There is no doubt people would prefer the buildings that land could be developed into over a decaying ode to concrete, but a handful of architecture snobs have robbed them of the choice.
Book, art, etc.? Sure. Saving one painting doesn’t stop others from being made. Buildings and the like are different. Each building that’s “protected” robs future generations of real estate that could be put to higher value uses.
My office is in the Watergate. Aside from being sinfully ugly, the historical preservation status of the building makes it impossible to redevelop a high-value piece of land (near transit and the water) into a dense walkable neighborhood. There is no doubt people would prefer the buildings that land could be developed into over a decaying ode to concrete, but a handful of architecture snobs have robbed them of the choice.