- When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.________________________________________
Saying that modern development should always be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings when they stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, the speaker asserts that the primary consideration of regional development is to increase modern, practical utilities. In some sense, it is true that maximization of immediate efficiencies is one of the important criteria in urban planning. If we use our imagination, however, this view seems, though inevitable, somewhat myopic. Considering improvement of life’s quality through environmental diversity as well as maintenance of cultural identity using several symbolic landmarks, the value to preserve the past cannot be compromised with ephemeral convenience and efficiency.
Of course, few would disagree that any wise regional planner should consider people’s practical demands. When it comes to basic economic values we expect from urban lives, any claim that emphasizes the legacy of the past over modern functionality may sound problematic. Narrow streets, rickety old buildings, and antiquated facilities without modern sanitization systems, however valuable they might be in terms of historic legacy, may limit a kind of desirable development of their areas with bettered transportation system, energy-efficient modern buildings and more useful, cleaner facilities. In short, urban innovation and renovation intended to update modern convenience and efficiency cannot be blameworthy.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that altering an area for modern purposes is always praiseworthy and the wisest way of regional planning. When it comes to keeping symbolic landmarks which will attract prospective travelers and serve as a source of citizens’ pride, disregard of those historic buildings may be the worst and most foolish idea a planner can take. The Golden Gate has become somewhat inefficient and dilapidated for San Francisco’s modern traffic demands; then should planners of the city remove the old bridge and build more up-to-date one? If it would happen, the city should lose its unique “flavor,” something we call its identity. ………………………………………….
Saying that modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings when they stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, the speaker asserts that any successful regional planning should be guided by modern (clear, practical, immediate) utilities. In some sense, it is undeniable that planners should take into account several functional needs of contemporary society. From my perspective, however, this view is overlooking other more important, albeit elusive and non-formal, values to preserve antiquated heritages.
If certain economic, functional values matter, //Yet, when it comes to the ever-increasing importance of traveling industry, //In addition, in terms of cultural diversity,
The speaker asserts that wherever a practical, utilitarian need for new buildings arises this need should take precedence over our conflicting interest in preserving historic buildings as a record of our past. In my view, however, which interest should take precedence should be determined on a case-by-case basis--and should account not only for practical and historic considerations but also aesthetic ones.
In determining whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider the community's current and anticipated utilitarian needs. For example, if an additional hospital is needed to adequately serve the health-care needs of a fast-growing community, this compelling interest might very well outweigh any interest in preserving a historic building that sits on the proposed site. Or if additional parking is needed to ensure the economic survival of a city's downtown district, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old structure that stands in the way of a parking structure. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retrofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.
Competing with a community's utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an older building uniquely represents a bygone era, or once played a central role in the city's history as a municipal structure. Or perhaps the building once served as the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or as the location of an important historical event. Any of these scenarios might justify saving the building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the building's history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that meets a compelling practical need.
Also competing with a community's utilitarian needs is the aesthetic and architectural value of the building itself--apart from historical events with which it might be associated. A building might be one of only a few that represents a certain architectural style. Or it might be especially beautiful, perhaps as a result of the craftsmanship and materials employed in its construction--which might be cost-prohibitive to replicate today. Even retrofitting the building to accommodate current needs might undermine its aesthetic as well as historic value, by altering its appearance and architectural integrity. Of course it is difficult to quantify aesthetic value and weigh it against utilitarian considerations. Yet planners should strive to account for aesthetic value nonetheless.
In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, weighing the community's practical needs against the building's historic and aesthetic value.