(no subject)

[stormdog]

A conversation about historical preservation vs. the needs of people to have accessible buildings is making me feel like a bad person.

I really think that the rights (not just needs, but *rights*) of disabled folks to have access to things outweighs historic preservation issues. But I can understand where the preservationists are coming from and I sympathize with them.

Comments

[cmcmck]

I disagree on this one- some of the really old buildings here are of such historic value that you can't simply stick lift shafts in or widen doors and such.

It's the same argument that states that deep woodland should be accessible to all. I'd love to know how the 'experts' intend to do that without total destruction of habitat.

Surely with headset technology and so forth now so advanced, 'virtual' access would make a deal more sense?

[stormdog]

That's a really good point too, and I think I'd agree with you in some contexts that I wasn't thinking about.

The context of the discussion in the other post was a residential neighborhood. A family living there wants to build a garage to accomodate a disabled person's vehicle and some of the neighbors are unhappy about the look.

Historical preservation is complicated. Preservation itself is ahistorical and inherently makes a judgment about what form of a place is 'authentic', thus delegitimizing other forms of that places's history.