Sharing a video of the building while still aflame, Brad Gordon wrote: “If you don’t understand why Black Americans are celebrating the symbolic dismantling of this monument to bondage and generational oppression — well, today, we simply don’t care.”
I think buildings shouldn’t all become museums, but rather repurposed depending on the needs of the living population. For example there’s an old slaughterhouse in Toulouse, France, that was renovated into a modern art hall. Bordeaux, France has an old submarine base that became an immersive exhibition center.
In my opinion buildings aren’t monoliths and should be used by the living, the dead who occupied them have no say in what they become
However, in this case, a resort for rich, presumably predominantly white , people, probably doesn’t meet your criteria for “needs of the living population.” It certainly doesn’t meet mine.
What I mean is the population that’s living in wherever region of the world this is, get to decide whatever they want to do with this, we shouldn’t keep or preserve an old building "as is"just because it has history, history is for books, buildings are for the material needs of the people in the present
Edit: I think I wrote this comment poorly so here’s a better explanation to how I feel - I dont care about a building history, if this one burns and is replaced by a playground, it’s a much better use than maintaining this old house just because its a testament of the past, especially considering its context. People hung up on the past can take a picture of it, or make a small sized replica to have in a museum.
But… Museums do serve a purpose for the living population. If they didn’t invite visitors, then it would be a storehouse.
They do, but again, not all buildings should be a museum
You can recreate a miniature version of this kind of architecture and exhibit it somewhere else, and use the available land for something else
I like that idea.
Thanks haha