Explore BrainMass

the arguments be for preserving old architecture

Should old art, old buildings, be removed or torn down to make way for the new? For example, the Chicago Stock Exchange building in a prime downtown location was designed by the great architect Louis Sullivan, called "the father of modernism." A major civic argument broke out when the property was purchased by developers who wanted to demolish the Stock Exchange and replace it with an undistinguished office building. The developers won. The trading room of the Stock Exchange was dismantled and rebuilt in a wing of the Art Institute of Chicago. For Sullivan: http://www.answers.com/topic/louis-sullivan

So: What would the arguments be for preserving, or for tearing down and replacing?

Solution Preview

Hi there,

Here is some info regarding preserving buildings:

Here are just some of the arguments to reclaim spaces:

1. Preserving historic sites related to people, events, and ideas saves and interprets the cultural heritage of a society. This reminds us of where we came from and who we are.
2. Saving and reusing public buildings, which serve as landmarks in our towns and cities, gives our society its identity and sense of place. Examples of such buildings include courthouses, churches, theatres, libraries, schools, transportation centers, banks, state capitols, and other structures.
3. The preservation of existing residential buildings maintains continuity in our communities and creates the reference points from which we take possession of our environment. The owners ...