Postby FISHMANPET » March 9th, 2016, 12:18 pm
First, I think the value of the Colosseum would be much less if it was a preserved facade covering a renovated and private structure. Second, I'd say the greatest crime in tearing down the Gateway was that it was replaced with mostly nothing, but I understand that people will disagree on that point.
But more importantly on the first, is the value of the Colosseum partly in that it is open for us to see in some regard? And sure we can walk along Milwaukee Ave, but that tells us very little story, all we see are somewhat smaller similar looking houses. I'm not sure how much that consistent streets cape tells us when the insides have all been renovated and our private spaces, hidden from our prying eyes.
As much as I often come across as a heartless unfeeling monster, I do have some sympathy with wanting to save buildings. I shed a tiny tear any time I see a picture of the former Penn Station in New York City. I just have a hard time articulating why it should have been saved. I suppose it certainly was a testament to the wealth and power of railroads in the beginning of the 20th century, and was definitely built from the start as a monument. I was watching something about Grand Central Terminal, and there's a waiting room area where the floor is worn down, from immigrants sitting there shuffling their feet back and forth waiting to board trains west to their new lives. I think that's an incredibly visceral link to the past, something that tells a real story. I'm sure you can find things like that in Penn Station.
But back to this house, or any of the hundreds or thousands of old homes. How visceral is their story, and more important, how relevant is that story to the public? The house I'm renting has been owned by the same family since the 50s, the owner's grandparents lived in it, his father was raised in it. There's spot in the kitchen where they marked the height of the grandkids as they grew. Adam is the owner's name, there are markings "Adam 87" "Adam 88" etc etc. That's a very visceral link to the past, but how relevant is that to the greater public? For sure when the house gets torn down I hope someone in the family at least takes that board out and saves it. But it's certainly not worth saving the entire house over. And even if it was, it would only be preserved for the single family fortunate enough to live in the house. It would in no way educate the public at large about anything.
So I see a big problem with who gets to experience the preserved heritage of these old structures. They are not preserved for the benefit of the public, but primarily for the benefit of whoever is fortunate to occupy them. Couple in the fact that mostly these structures end up being expensive buildings preserved to be even more expensive, and there's certainly a social justice angle to who gets to experience this heritage. And then the number of people (and I don't think it applies to anyone here, but it certainly applies to some people) who use heritage preservation as another tool in their "prevent all change anywhere forever" and then it becomes hard to separate people who are generally interested in preserving heritage and people that just don't like change.
And finally, as Matt says, even the Colosseum replaced something else. If we freeze too much of a place in amber, isn't there a great cost to preventing our future heritage from ever being created in the first place? Everything that exists now. Every apartment, every house, every business, every park, replaced something else. Be it another building or even forest or swamp or prairie or anything, there was something there before what's here now was here. I feel fortunate that in 1909 the space my home occupied was allowed to change, and a house built. I feel fortunate that this house allowed 3 or 4 generations of a family over 60 years to live and grow and experience life and leave their mark, whatever small it may be, on our city. I feel fortunate that now this house allows me to do the same.
On some very visceral level, I feel ashamed about historic preservation of these old houses at the expense of new development, because I feel like we're robbing some future individuals and families from leading their lives and leaving their mark on this city. So what's the greater crime, erasing our past, or preventing our future from even existing?
Which I do every work day if the weather's not too bad.
