That, and the fact that the last war to be fought on US soil pre-dates the invention of film.
(US Civil War ended in 1865; film was invented by George Eastman in 1884)
Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile.
(US Civil War ended in 1865; film was invented by George Eastman in 1884)
Lamenting the lack of architectural appreciation remains worthwhile.
Why? Humans conform nature to our needs. If we need a better building, why shouldn't we tear down an old one? All of the previous building's history will remain documented in, say, Wikipedia.
This is probably just the worldview of an inexperienced kid though.
(This is an honest question, not a statement of opinion.)
Dropping buildings in the midst of the U never gives things the chance to recover and move past fashion. Most buildings discarded are due to the design being old and out of date. But old buildings in a city plant the cities history in time and allow it to tell a story. Remember that 'Gothic' cathedrals were so named because the term was in regular use as a description of something vulgar. The Notre Dame in Paris was at one stage due for demolition until the story of Quasimodo re-inspired the public to keep it - the restoration is still ongoing.
Buildings can be re-purposed and still keep their charm. The mistake is in discarding things just because they are old.
It's very true that not all old things are worth keeping, but the benefit of the doubt must go to the building until the current fashion has moved into the past.
Also, in the case of Berlin, a lot of damaged structures have been reinforced and kept standing as they were at the end of the war. It reminds the city of what can happen if continual efforts towards peace are not made. These scars on the landscape are a constant reminder of the cities turbulent past, and help develop a sense of the story of the city while walking around.
Buildings are the ultimate encapsulator of society - it's where we live, die, make decisions and create history. As such they have a special importance in being kept to tell that story to newcomers.
From what I know of NYC, it's much the same, with bohemian lofts where old tenements once stood.
That's one of the things I miss most about New England, having moved out to California. Here, everything is cookie-cutter suburbia, built in a hurry during the 70s and 80s. There's none of the charm or history of the Boston area. I can walk around downtown Lowell and say "This is a charming city, even if it's a little economically depressed." I can't really say the same about San Jose, even though it's cleaner, safer, and much more well-off.
http://pics.ww.com/v/jacques/buildings/dscf1025.jpg.html
or this:
http://pics.ww.com/v/jacques/buildings/dscf1021.jpg.html
The oldest parts of this building date from the 12th century:
http://www.engelmunduskerkvelsenzuid.nl/images/foto_kerk_2.j...
I've actually had an office in the 'carpet factory' in Toronto, which was an industrial revolution age textile mill, amazing building, white pine roof beams that were easily 1 1/2' on a side in the section that we were in.
Fortunately some of those buildings remain, but an enormous number of them got torn down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae
Skara Brae had been abandoned for 1200 years when Troy fell!
For a building that can actually be used, how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hercules (1900 years old) or the Pantheon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome (~1900 years).
Although my favourite is Hagia Sophia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia - a youngster at almost 1500 years old.
The other buildings are in daily use though, which is why I used them instead of old Roman buildings and such.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Acoma_Pueblo
although there are ruins that are much older:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chaco_Canyon
In other parts of the continent, there are much older continuously inhabited cities.
San Jose was founded in 1776. The houses in my neighborhood were built in 190x, mine in 1902.
All of the "mission" cities date from about that time. They're all full of old buildings. (Yes, there are Victorians in Monterey.) Heck, the Sacramento and Central Valley are full of towns that date from the 1850s.
Don't confuse Palo Alto with California.
Montreal in Canada is also worth taking a look at.
Some of the old Spanish settlements in the South, and especially the old part of San Juan Puerto Rico are very old world feeling.
On this point, a good thing to do is to keep some of the ubiquitous everyday things when you want to throw them away. Especially outdated technology like, say, old mobile phones. In 50 years they will become a rarity.
Holding costs you ask? Well, if you pay $10000 sq/ft/yr for your house (renting, buying, whatever) then it 'costs' you a fraction of that to keep stuff in boxes. Then, there is moving costs, insurance costs etc. I know this is an inane example, but the point is to make people realise that hoarding stuff has very real costs, one of which is the 'mental space' that it takes. We all know the feeling that comes from throwing stuff in the bin - that's the other side of the ledger to hanging onto it.
My point being that buildings are worth keeping, as are mobile phones to a mobile phone enthusiast. But we shouldn't just hang onto stuff because it might be worth something one day.
Edit: http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/540017.ht... also, he is in good health.
(Apparently the people at HN tend to think of everything as a business opportunity ;) )
But I think that it goes deeper than that. Some of the buildings are so old that they should have fallen down long ago, it's just that there is always somebody that thinks that to repair it is the better course than to throw it down. Having a lot of historical buildings around you and near you sets the stage and it would feel unnatural to remove one of them and replace it with some modern house. When an old farmhouse burns down it usually gets rebuilt.
A big part of this is that all over europe there are heritage commissions that have a keen eye for what is and what is not of historical value and a relatively large amount of money is pumped in to maintaining those buildings that are deemed valuable. It isn't rare at all to see a 16th century building where I live (nl) and I know a couple (churches, mostly) that are older than 800 years.
For me the main reason not to tear it down is that destruction is easy, creation is not. By respecting that which was created by those that came before you get a deeper appreciation for you place in the world. Rather than document what the Sistine Chapel looks like and tearing it down (extreme example, ok), we have the original to look at, which gives a completely different sense of perspective on history. There is a reason why millions of tourists flock here to see these things with their own eyes, an image of a thing is not a replacement for the thing.
That goes for buildings, but it also goes for other works of art.
Of course, it helps that I live in a beautiful and old city (though hardly ancient compared to some) - as I write this I can look up at a castle perched on the plug of an extinct volcano, parts nearly a thousand years old, and think that this is really rather a nice place to live and work.
I suggest you walk the streets of Rome or Istanbul, sit in the center of an Egyptian pyramid or wonder at the stone houses of Skara Brae and then consider what the value of "old buildings" are.
There are a few good reasons that the science of geology was pretty much started here :-)
I, for one, love living in a >100-year-old apartment house with 3 ft thick walls and antique wavy glass windows.
On Sunday, we took a little trip to the countryside and roamed around a big castle built in 1100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign
You're correct though, for all intents and purposes.