clem on McGuigan article

In this article, McGuigan discusses "the complex issue in saving modern buildings". It is true that in the year 2010, it might seem irrelevant to us simple young souls, to preserve a building, a hotel, a movie theatre or anything from the modern era of architecture. I speak for myself here probably but it is true I never really cared if any of those constructions were torn down. But reading this article it got me thinking, what if Notre- Dame de Paris constructed in the 12th century in the Gothic style had been destroyed during the Renaissance just because it seemed out of style and ugly in comparison with what they were designing at that time? What if all the edifices our ancestors built for centuries no longer existed? What would we do with out the Pyramids of Giza, the Roman Colosseum? We would be deprived of history and of the understanding of our past. We would be missing the links and clues telling us how we got here, why we now build things in the post- modernist style of architecture. Yes comparing those to the "lollipop" building might be extreme but they all represent the style of their time! Maybe now modernist architecture does not seem important to us but it will in 100 years! I know everything built cannot remain but as the writer of this article says we should be able to mediate "between pristine preservation and bulldozer". Some buildings, and it has become popular to do so are given a new life by conserving their core but by having a new purpose. IT is important because it is part of a cultural movement that we humans created and evolved from but also because it is now part of History, even if it does not feel as such yet.