> Ah, the “little people” of multi million dollar inherited homes and land really got some justice here.
The 'little people' referenced isn't the home owner. It's the community in San Francisco who lost a piece of notable architecture.
The 'little people' referenced isn't the home owner. It's the community in San Francisco who lost a piece of notable architecture.
Part of history and archeology is trying to understand the past better. But part of it is also realizing that future generations will have knowledge and tools that we don’t, and some level of preservation should be done as a matter of course, so that hidden knowledge isn’t erased before its salvage becomes feasible.
I can’t argue for this specific house, just that being famous isn’t the only reason to keep something.
Actually, in some ways it’s the famous locations that could be harmlessly torn down: the historic information has mostly been extracted, and many popular locations are merely a curiosity for tourists to stick in their cap.