[slide_rule]

mhays, you're really rambling, and you're not exactly responding to others' arguments.

do you really see the twa terminal and the yoyogi national gymnasium as expendable? that's on the level of wanting to ditch the sagrada familia, the eiffel tower, the bank of china, etc. sadly there are more than a few of you out there.

say you dislike pacers, and you include every example of brutalism with the pacers of the world. BUT in previous generations, other styles were seen as the architectural equivalent of pacers. this goes for buildings like the richfield tower in los angeles and the singer in new york. both were torn down in the 60s.

richfield tower--fussy machine made art deco
singer building--ersatz second empire revival

in the 60s the PREVAILING ATTITUDE held these buildings to be expendable.

look at miami beach. its art deco/tropical modern/streamline moderne buildings are now roundly appreciated by professionals to architectural tourists to the paris hilton crowd. it's also the best example of functioning urbanity in the miami era. yet a generation ago, most people saw it as an eyesore, full of outdated and unfashionably ugly buildings that catered to old geezers from new york.

the list goes on. what about the teardowns of so cal's remaining googie buildings? there are a small number of architects and activists who are fighting for their preservation. yet they're just pacers to you.

you don't want to admit it, but "taste" in architecture is heavily influenced by the prevailing fashion. the currently unfashionable styles aren't objectively worthy of a mass teardown, just like the unfashionable styles of earlier generations (art deco, second empire revival, streamline moderne) were singled out for demolition, but were later re-assessed to have their own qualities. finally, people are not completely rational. nostalgia plays a role in our likes and dislikes. advocating the demolition of particular style may sound good right now, but it will be seen as a mistake in the future.

you still haven't addressed the similarities between your lauding of historicism and hatred for brutalism/modernism; and the baroque vs. neoclassical argument.

then you talk about insustainability (sic). if only functioning urbanism were contingent on style.