Strangely enough, I am on the side of the church in this one:

[Strong Atheist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090517/ap_on_re_us/us_modernist_church;_ylt=ApezPK7zo9JDiRJMXdgDD0E7Xs8F

I really don't like historic preservation laws, for just the types of situations that happened in this article...

[Donnachaidh]

1. labeling this an historic landmark when it was built in 1971?

Give me a break! Tear the damned thing down. Let them put up something that is less of a money pit.

[Strong Atheist]

3. The problem is, "new" buildings get this type of designation more

than they should... I see these types of articles too frequently.

Suppose you get famous, and have lived somewhere most of your life. Suddenly, your house could be "historic", and all sorts of busybodies like those in the article will start to tell you what you can and can not do with it ...

[Donnachaidh]

6. that thing is an abomination

I'd love to know who put this monster up for that label.

[sharp_stick]

2. So do I

Not often that happens. I for one really hate that concrete crap that passed as architechure in the 60's and 70's. Where I went to grad school our health sciences building was a massive concrete pen with such bad lighting that no amount of artificial light could make it look anything but cold and grey.

We called it the box.

[GodlessBiker]

4. This is a freedom of religion thing to me. eom

[azurnoir]

5. It looks like a high security prison n/t

[JuniperLea]

7. Los Angeles has one very much like that... horrid... ugly as hell...

Looks like a bomb shelter.

[moobu2]

8. I like Brutalist architecture

I can understand why this style wouldn’t appeal to everybody, but still, these building are an important part of architectural design history and shouldn’t be torn down on a whim. Once they've been torn down, they're gone forever.


The name ’brutal-ism” derived from the French words ‘Béton brut’ which means ’raw concrete’.



Brutalist architecture

[Strong Atheist]

9. Who gets to decide? Some busybody who doesn't own the building, or the owners? nt.

[moobu2]

10. A board of architects and community leaders normally do that because

it’s in the entire communities interest to regulate what's built, what's torn down, or what changes are made to buildings facades etc.. Most large communities have decided to regulate this sort of thing and implement a review system because it effects everyone in the community.

[Silent3]

11. If it's in the interest of the community...

...is the community also going to chip in and pay the bills for the upkeep? Donate a new plot of land so the church can build the building they want to have?

I can understand the motive for historic preservation laws, and perhaps in some cases I can agree with them (particularly when an owner knows what they're getting into at time of purchase), but government shouldn't impose major, special burdens on citizens without either either compensation or the ability to opt out.

[Strong Atheist]

12. Agreed. nt.