COMMENT OF THE DAY: WHERE HISTORY WAS 
“. . . The loss of historic architecture does not mean that the area is no longer historic; however, signs could be posted that say something to the effect of, “this historic area used to contain significant architecture that was so undervalued that it was demolished to make way for new, soon to be historic architecture.†[Higher Density, commenting on Daily Demolition Report: Kickerillo Down] Illustration: Lulu
Sign up for the Newsletter
I think the word “architecture” is thrown around too lightly in this town. Also, “architectural” does not equal “historic.”
I don’t consider something historic unless, at the very least, it was built before my lifetime. Much of the value of history, after all, is being able to have contact with a world that isn’t the same old familiar world you’re accustomed to. Buildings constructed now may become historic someday, but it won’t be in my lifetime. I’d rather save the ones we have.
“Historic” will always be a moving target and never an absolute definition.
That is why society must value the best examples (of whatever!) and preserve them into the future. We can’t know what the Next Thing will be, and, It can not devalue yesterday when it arrives…
Not much different than enjoying, valuing and learning from one’s grandparent.