urbanMSP

Yeah, after I posted that I remembered what Saint Paul did to the Rondo neighborhood.

I'll weigh in on the Metropolitan and say that before tearing down a large fully occupied building with no structural issues we should probably think more than twice. I don't think being out of step with the visual esthetic of the day is quite enough.

Implying St. Paul didn't use the freeway to clear neighborhoods in front of the capitol and Rondo. They just spared properties in their downtown long enough for them to become the good kind of old/historic and not just old. The fact that we tend to focus more on Minneapolis' destruction and largely give St. Paul a free pass since they didn't demolish the "good buildings" is a bit suspect.

Preservation is pretty much invariably about either sustained value or neglect. The old building is still there because no one wanted to replace it. Either because it's still performing well or because there was no interest in putting something bigger/better/more valuable there. Or both. This is true of old buildings in downtown St. Paul. This is where intentional preservation movements go wrong. They seek to impose the judgment of a small handful of interested individuals and pretend that it they are wiser than the market. They aren't. That's why historic protections should be very well grounded and rare.

Tearing down a functioning structure for its own sake, however, should be nonexistent.

This is where intentional preservation movements go wrong. They seek to impose the judgment of a small handful of interested individuals and pretend that it they are wiser than the market. They aren't. That's why historic protections should be very well grounded and rare.

Tearing down a functioning structure for its own sake, however, should be nonexistent.

I 100% agree here. If people still want to rent in the Metropolitan, don't tear it down. If people want to ensure a neighborhood can never be touched because they're afraid of having to share it with apartments, that's wrong.