Obviously I may be biased but isn’t change inevitable or even desired when it comes to replacing perhaps a worn down, style of building to a more contemporary, energy efficient one that perhaps is even larger or able to accommodate more families? Unless you are talking the Palace of Fine Arts I say build or tear down as you please (as long as you replace to code and zoning rules)…
Why are architects celebrities. Nobody cares about famous engineers… Nothing is sacred about a house. Why preserve it? Why isn’t their more outrage about the housing shortage caused by this nostalgic drivel?
1 Like
Property rights of the owner should be most important. If people want the home preserved, then get a museum to buy it and move it to the museum. We have way too many tiny museums all over as it is.
The city of SF has decided that preserving nostalgic homes is more important than solving the housing shortage… Presevation is used as a weapon to stop greedy developers from making money… the mantra of the Stupes