The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a River City newspaper:
“The Clio Development Group’s plan for a multilevel parking garage on Dock Street should be approved in order to strengthen the economy of the surrounding area. Although most of the buildings on the block would have to be demolished, they are among the oldest in the city and thus of little current economic value. Those who oppose the project should realize that historic preservation cannot be the only consideration: even Athens or Jerusalem will knock down old buildings to put up new ones that improve the local economy.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author’s argument that the destruction of the old buildings on Dock Street is necessary to spur economic progress is patently fallacious. His argument that other cities such as Athens and Jerusalem have torn down old buildings and rebuilt them is ignored. Indeed, both cities had far more valuable, historic structures than what still remains in their downtown areas. Any such comparison would be irrelevant to the situation on Dock Street, where it is possible to renovate old structures without destroying them, and where, as a practical matter, no one will probably destroy one building in order to build another. More to the point, the historic buildings on Dock Street alone would not contribute much to the economy, given their current state of disrepair and decrepitude. The buildings in question have stood for more than a century, and while they may have at one time been more opulent than their current counterparts, none have been renovated since their original construction. Many may have fallen into disrepair because of the city’s economic struggles, but demolishing them will not solve that problem
If it is true that no building can last forever, it is also true that there are a variety of buildings that exist today that were built centuries ago. Why should the Clio Development Group be singled out for destruction? If the group were to receive a grant to renovate the buildings, it would not only preserve them, but it would also contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. The aged buildings are more historic than modern buildings, and they possess several unique features that modern buildings do not possess. For example, the Dock Street buildings may be sturdier than modern structures, because their use was to provide shelter and protection for farmers and other residents. One can imagine these buildings as sturdy structures that will withstand the forces of nature. The structures may also be built with materials not available today, such as granite, which strengthens them further. Additionally, the old buildings have doors and windows that retain much of their original character, which the new buildings lack. The old buildings offer the opportunity to restore them to their original, historic state, rather than erecting new buildings that look the same as modern ones
If the Clio Development Group does receive government funding to refurbish the old buildings, it may also create new jobs. If the group rebuilds the buildings, it will need workers, and, in turn, those workers will create more demand for more goods and services. The new jobs will also generate tax revenue for local businesses. Therefore, the destruction of the buildings will do little to improve the area economically. Furthermore, it will do little to attract new businesses to the area, because new businesses look for buildings that conform to modern building codes. Therefore, destroying the old buildings on Dock Street will only cause economic stagnation, not progress, and those who believe this should reconsider.