![“Does anyone really think this is an improvement?” [1024x1273 - 2MB]](https://pic8.co/sh/ktdo5I.png){kind=link}
New architecture can be beautiful, but it should never come at the expense of eradicating the past.
Architectural marvels in masonry and wood were, for their day, ingenious applications of engineering by brilliant European (and occasional East Asian) minds. If they are able, they should remain standing as a testament to the legacy of creativity and ingenuity of our ancestors.
Any new construction and design should also serve to elevate and inspire. What we get today is oppressive and demoralizing.
If they are able
I think maybe they are not able, meaning both the artisans and the elites who should be financing their work.
I meant the structural integrity of the buildings. If they can remain standing, they should.
I don’t mean every thatch roofed hovel in downtown London should have stayed in place, but many buildings, such as cathedrals and other cultural center buildings, should be allowed to stand as long as they are structurally sound.
Yes well thanks for clarifying.
(post is archived)