Which is basically what I said in my next paragraph. I work in urban planning, and this weighing of interests is basically what urban planning is all about. Sometimes things that are worth preserving can’t be preserved.
An example from my workplace:
For instance in my municipality there was an old empty “Folkets hus” ( a type of community hall built all over sweden by the workers movement) from the 1920’s that was in a bad condition in one of our smaller towns (or larger villages depending on how you define it). A local small business wanted to buy the property, tear the old building down and build a small building for his artisanal manufacturing company. The building was clearly worth preserving both because of its historical and architectural value. The building was allowed to be torn down after the museum documented it in a report with photographs, drawings etc.
The socio-economic circumstances in this small town/village combined with the condition of the building didn’t really make it a hard decision. The people working with historical preservation at the museum agreed with it the whole way even if everyone agreed that it was a shame that it had torn down.
The assessment based on wheter the building in it self is worth preserving is based on knowledge, not on taste or anything else if done by proffessionals.Whether it can be preserved in the end or there are other needs that are more important is another question. Which I tried to explain in my example above (with my maybe unnuanced command of English).
