Let’s squelch the rumor that OP’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is being renamed the Neighborhood Embalming Commission (NEC), with ex officio membership granted to and attendance required of Drechsler, Brown, Williams, Smith, Kampp, and Postlewait.
In that vein, consider efforts by Tom Wolfe to thwart development of 980 Madison Ave. as harming NYC’s Upper East Side Historic District. It’s a 1949 building, note Gene Callahan and Julius Blumfeld on the Mises Institute web site. But as to what’s transportable from their comments, consider that:
“the building they are attempting to preserve represented a change in the character of the neighborhood at the time it was built, as, indeed, did every other structure presently in the historic district. If today’s preservation laws had been in place 100 years ago, it is likely that little of what the preservationists are trying to preserve would even exist. The other irony is that, if the innovative design for the new construction at 980 Madison Avenue is realized it is probable that, in a few decades, it will be regarded as the very sort of landmark requiring protection by preservation laws.”
These two go farther back:
“We can imagine hypothetical, past preservationists preventing the construction of the Athenian Parthenon (it will ruin the natural beauty of the unspoiled acropolis!), the Roman Coliseum (a massive structure, out of keeping with the neighborhood!), the Empire State Building (blocks the views of residents in the vicinity!), or any other edifice today considered as an important part of our cultural heritage.”
That’s too cute for some of us, yes. But preservation can be carried too far, we must agree. In any case, we look to government to preserve things at our peril.
“Our arguing that decisions about the fate of historical edifices and scenic landscapes should be in the hands of market participants in no way implies that we long for the day when all of our cultural treasures have been leveled to make way for ‘more efficient’ operations, like factories, malls, and condominiums.”
Don’t count on “the state,” meaning government, they argue, suggesting alternatives:
“voluntary associations can purchase and preserve sites, owners can place covenants on their property to restrict alterations when selling it, and tourists can show their appreciation for some landmark by paying a fee to visit it.”
Not a sure thing, this. Things can go wrong. But can’t they go wrong when government is in charge? Are we sure we can trust it in this cruel world?