I think the problem here is the definition of the word 'significant'. Just because some person or persons likes an architect's work, does not mean that every piece that architect did needs to be preserved. (I'm not saying that is the case in this instance, just that it is one end of the spectrum.) Even people who agree, as I do, that significant works deserve preservation get hung up on this point. One person's significant work is another person's dump.
Personally, I think that if they want the building preserved, they should purchase it, and have it moved to somewhere where it will be. Buy the structure, pay to have it moved, and take custody of it. If it's that important, finding funding should be doable, right? I don't believe that a group's aesthetic opinion should hold sway over private property. Environmental fact, that's one thing (to a point) - aesthetic opinion? Not so much.
|