After reading "Defining merit in historic preservation" (Editorial, Jan. 11), regarding saving modern-era buildings, and specifically the proposed demolition of the former Knutson Co. office building at 21 N. Washington Av. in Minneapolis, I'm compelled to offer some thoughts on preserving even buildings we may not like.
We often look at buildings that are to be demolished and think, "What's so special about that building that we should save it?" That is an appropriate question. Progress often requires removal of existing structures to build something new. But the answer ought not be determined by whether we "like" the building in question.
Assessing the historic value of a structure (building, site, landscape or object) is not a Facebook exercise — selection by liking.
Deciding what to value and save should not be a matter of taste but rather a collection of considerations that transcend transient tastes. History has shown today's trash becomes tomorrow's treasures.
As to buildings — popular opinion once disliked Victorian-style houses, which were later embraced by the youth culture and are now accepted as beautiful historic treasures.
It once would have been hard to imagine our cities' warehouses becoming highly valued housing — much less the extent to which new construction mimics the style of what once was seen as the old rough, dirty warehouse.
Modern is the current unloved style. Yet it is an integral part of America's postwar history. The style was born of a desire to espouse a spirit of social and technological progress. It was about social democracy, achieving freedom and independence through technology and innovation.
The structures were constructed of new and experimental materials that drove American industry to develop and upgrade and help move the country into a new future. New products and structural innovations freed us from thick masonry walls and small windows, allowing us to embrace nature with expansive views and natural light.