[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51227037]Okay its very clear you're just gonna ignore any rational conversation about this, we've discussed -repeatedly- why this is a much different case than 'oh but i like old buildings!!!!'[/QUOTE]
And what case is that? Because all Ive seen is "Hitler was born there ; (" and "its expensive!", which are both silly.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51227100]And what case is that? Because all Ive seen is "Hitler was born there ; (" and "its expensive!", which are both silly.[/QUOTE]
if it's too expensive to maintain how are you expecting anyone to maintain it? You can't just leave old ass buildings up until they crumble. No one's using it for shit either because of the owner, so you're just going to have it stand there for what? There's already a local museum that has an exhibit about Hitler and the relation to the house.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;51227132]if it's too expensive to maintain how are you expecting anyone to maintain it? You can't just leave old ass buildings up until they crumble. No one's using it for shit either because of the owner, so you're just going to have it stand there for what? There's already a local museum that has an exhibit about Hitler and the relation to the house.[/QUOTE]
Except you and nobody else have presented any numbers on the cost of upkeep on the building. And like I said previously, upkeeping history is expensive but it is absolutely worth it.
What makes this particular building too expensive to maintain compared to the buildings around it of equal age and similar construction? Additionally, I see no evidence that cost of upkeep is the city's concern. They want to knock it down because Hitler was born there, and that's a bad reason to demolish a historic building.
Just because it's not currently in use doesn't mean it needs to be immediately knocked down, either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
