We all live in beautiful cities, towns, buildings, and houses, and they represent our culture and history. They also express our values and aspirations. Architecture from the past illustrates our ancestors, their lifestyles, values, and outlooks. The buildings started becoming taller since the last decades of the nineteenth century. In the 20th century, we built some of the incredible buildings and landmarks. We have demolished some iconic landmarks and buildings that once represented our culture and history.
Here below, we have compiled some of the most incredible buildings, train stations, offices, hotels, and many other architectures that we have demolished. Also, check demolished landmarks and structures of New York City.
All of these building were demolished over 70 years ago, they were replaced with new landmarks for people living in this century.
I don’t get your point.
People think historical landmarks in the US are cool and lament the loss of some of them. It’s not a hard concept to understand.
Old buildings are like a cancer. Cut them out and replace them with buildings that are in code and fit the function of a 21st century building.
You suck
What is the counter argument that we should support and maintain older buildings that are not in code?
Artistic, cultural, and aesthetic value. The same reasons we have things like UNESCO (which many buildings worldwide fall under).
Check the date, all of these buildings were torn down over 70 years ago.
Artistic, cultural, and aesthetic value are subjective buildings Should reflect today’s Artistic, cultural, and aesthetic values and be up to present day building codes.
It’s not that difficult to bring existing buildings up to code. Plus it’s more environmentally friendly than building a new one. The number of buildings on that list were razed in favor of a parking lot is disgraceful
How do you prove this post?
I’ve worked on restoring buildings for 20 years, both as a carpenter and structural engineer. If you’d like to know anything specific feel free to ask. Just saying something isn’t up to code is an incredibly broad statement.
All of these building listed were demolished over 70 years ago, a little late to have regret.
If an owner of a piece of property converts a building to a parking lot, what is actually going on here? I would think a building would offer more income than a parking lot. Maybe the building wasn’t worth keeping, but the property was, maybe there was a massive tax write off for demolishing the building?
My mistake any building that is in use, is up to code, otherwise it would be able to lease units.
My question is there a tax benefits for restoring older buildings than tear them down, recycle, and build new ones?
I like the way the one company in Japan dismantles buildings floor by floor (https://www.wired.com/2013/01/japan-building-demolition/)
Do you remember the NYC Highline were a group of New Yorkers were rediscovering the unused elevated structures that had a virtual natural greenscape and converted it into a park (https://www.thehighline.org/)? This would be a good example of not tearing down an old structure.
Buildings have life cycles, cities are natural hubs of social connections, so buildings should be able to be easily demolished, recycled, and new buildings arise, to fit the needs of the present and future users.