(06-03-2021, 06:34 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(06-03-2021, 06:09 PM)ac3r Wrote: Yeah, exactly. Whether it's this or beautiful concert hall, her point seems to be that it's important to balance value. A venue she may never get a chance to enter outweighs one she and all members of the community could utilize.Beautiful concert hall?
Just an example. We often designate buildings as having heritage value based on abstract merits like it's history, architecture, value etc. In many cases, these buildings are ultimately not utilized by the general public, just an "elite" group who may either have a specific need (concert halls) or who can afford to go there. Most people are not regularly visiting these heritage properties for any reason, although they do have value. In this case, the author of the article makes that point in saying, while the building is beautiful, only a small percentage of the city residents have any reason to go there...so why let that prevail over our desperate need for housing?
Personally, I think it should be saved because it's an incredibly unique and rare building, but her point in that we really need housing in this country stands. It's just a matter of balancing the two: heritage versus progress.