50 years is a compromise between those who want more and those who want
less.  If you propose less, I will propose more.  50 years is a
workable number.  It allows a lot of unloved buildings to be disposed
of by the general public, the community.  It also gives us a pretty
fair picture of what the community is willing to protect.

Graceland does not need an exception to the 50 years to protect it, the
people will.  Only the Modernists need the exception to the fifty year
rule.  In some cases its a damned shame.  In most, demolition is richly
deserved by a school of architecture that turned its back on the
people, their traditions, their culture and their values.  Let it be a
lesson to cultural imperialist everywhere!

Meanwhile, there are not enough resources, human, capital, time,
political, scholarly, trades or management to protect everything that
might have merit.  Let the people decide, not the editors of
architectural magazines.  With all due respect to my colleagues
expending their passion and energy locally to save the Guthrie, its
integrity is gone, the people are supporting its replacement, it has a
long way to go to 50, and it is not endangered, it is simply not loved
as a building, it is loved as an experience.  The stage and the seating
are wonderful, but its time to let go, before we miss the opportunity
to save something of real value...again.

-jc


On Jun 14, 2004, at 8:04 AM, Becker, Dan wrote:

> Why 50 years?

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>