Quote:
Originally Posted by skysidhe
It's an idea wrapped up as an higher thought. Like: Why don't we just leave McDonald's wrappers on the Moon. We would call it trash. Some crack pot would call it urbanizing.
|
Which in itself raises an interesting point. Not re the moon, as no-one owns that. But how much you can treat something of (potentially) public value as a private commodity. And if it is of public value, how much the public should be responsible for its upkeep.
This is a private house. It is in fact of note because it is a private house. To protest - albeit in a subdued way - about how the owners choose to treat that house, especially if they are doing so to prvide funds for its upkeep is surely unreasonable.
However, if everyone with Roman remains on their land decided to build swimming pools/ extensions/ new houses/ supermarkets on them, then where would the rest of us look for heritage?
But then should the rest of the world have to support countries with many items of historical/ architectural interest like Egypt, as they do not have as developed an economy...?
To my mind there should be some national intervention (we have the horribly ineffective & political and bribe-suspected English Heritage). But then we're spoiled by a wealth of history and know we can happily bulldoze plenty without many people being any the wiser. What we got rid of in the 60s! Woooo-eeeee! Progress? Nope. It all had to be rebuilt in the 90s anyway.
I ended up falling in love with the biggest eyesore in my home town. I'd join any campaign to keep it if they suggested pulling it down now. Let it serve as a warning. But if they decided to paint it like Kelburn Castle? Yay! You'd need a few more buckets of paint though.