Is it reasonable to tear down historical buildings to construct something new? Should we preserve or demolish old buildings? 

​

The argument over whether historical places should be preserved for future generations or demolished to make way for something new is a heated ongoing debate in some places. On one side you have people insisting that it’s an essential way to pass on information of the past generations to the future ones. On the other side, people say they are a safety hazard and more money to maintain in the long term, and that demolishing them will increase property values and safety. 

 

What makes a historical place though? Can it just be any old structure? Does it have to be as important and well-known as the Great Pyramid of Giza? Historical sites in the United States must meet certain criteria. The two main parts are that it must be of national significance under one or more of the six NHL criteria, and it must have retained a high degree of integrity. The six criteria and what integrity means in this context can be viewed on the National Historic Landmarks website at this link: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/eligibility.htm. 

 

Being considered a National Historic Landmark gives the site some protection from the government. Even then they are not safe from demolition. Historical places are preserved through legal means and protests from locals. There are over 90,000 historical places, with only around 2,500 of them being classified as landmarks. Thousands have been removed from the list and torn down due to lack of funding or the property becoming obsolete. 

 

Not to say all historical destinations are possible to preserve. Many are destroyed due to national disasters, while others simply cost too much to maintain. Restoring and maintaining old buildings need extra consideration. Sourcing authentic materials, replicating original woodwork and masonry, regulations, structural surprises, modernization, skilled labor, and the overall maintenance and general long-term upkeep are daily problems for these sites. Sometimes removing the building is the easier option. It could make way for a more beneficial building or space, like a new house or park.

 

However, most would agree that it is a last resort. If the building is restorable, demolishing it would be destroying a piece of history. A benefit of restoring a historic property is the improvement of the community. A historic landmark doesn’t necessarily just need to sit there and attract tourists. The community could use it as a museum or a venue to host events.

 

No matter your stance on historical preservation, the United States only has a couple of centuries of history. Buildings with no purpose should be set for demolition but marked historical destinations being demolished is erasing our already short narrative. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/12/23/historic-designations-are-ruining-cities/ 

 

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/lost-historical-landmarks-in-america/ 

 

https://thisoldcity.com/why-national-historical-landmarks-arent-safe-from-getting-torn-down/ 

 

https://www.knockitdown.com/2022/10/10/should-old-buildings-be-preserved-or-demolished.

 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/what-is-historic-preservation.htm#:~:text=Historic%20preservation%20is%20an%20important,preservation%20helps%20tell%20these%20stories.

 

https://illustrarch.com/projects/museum/20605-the-cost-of-restoring-old-buildings.html?srsltid=AfmBOop5XSV2JluIyF3qoVyXT_t5myQOTtygVKC3XPDCDBadZKUGVZ6C

 

https://oldhistorichouses.com/what-makes-a-property-historic/

 

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/why-preserving-historical-places-and-sites-matters 

 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/eligibility.htm