View Single Post
Old Posted Feb 9, 2010, 7:53 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129 View Post
As before, I agree with you. However, I think you misunderstand my stance. I'm all for the preservation of structures that are significant, were/are architecturally innovative, especially beautiful, or have some sort of noteworthy history. Preserving entire districts is another story. Manhattan in particular cannot afford to preserve all of SoHo, for example, just because it is old, anything worthy can and will be preserved, but we cannot fall into a short-sighted state of mind where we keep things just because they exist.
I can understand that to an extent, I would have to say that what it should be is that places like SoHo should be able to be put under a preservation district that makes it much harder to simply tear down a building. Sure it would slow down the process, but in cases like this, it would give much longer thought and debate to tearing down something...but that would be the extreme, NYC in general should not be under such strict guidelines.
Reply With Quote