Yeah, it's *only* 30 years old, we better tear it down quick before it does qualify as a historic building..

:rolleyes:

Certainly there *has* to be an exception that would allow for *current* history to be preserved for the future?

Fifty years is a perfectly acceptable guideline for most industries, but "technological time" moves a lot faster. Thirty years ago is ANCIENT HISTORY in computer time. Thirty years ago, the Mac DIDN'T EXIST (well it was underway but not really a commercial product yet). Windows didn't exist. The Internet as we know it today didn't exist. I'm old enough that I remember this period, and it's even hard for ME to remember how anyone got anything done (particularly in business) without these things! Oh yeah, file cabinets and typewriters and fax machines and LOTS of talking on the telephone. I have to smile when people tell me they can't LIVE without their (map or navigation app of choice). Gosh, I wonder how I managed to see big chunks of the world without that stuff? :)

Originally Posted by jwdsail

Yeah, it's *only* 30 years old, we better tear it down quick before it does qualify as a historic building..
:rolleyes:
Certainly there *has* to be an exception that would allow for *current* history to be preserved for the future?

OK, then what? You still have to then explain why the building should be considered historic. Wow, it built Macs. Sorry, there's nothing 'historic' about that. It's just a building that was used to make a computer. And then what of those who own it? They're then stuck having to keep this building in the state it is currently in, no ability to update it, or raze it to build something they could actually lease out, say.

And labelling a place a 'historic site' should be limited to buildings where the architecture is special or unique, or perhaps where some historic happening occurred (thus Ford's theater or the Gettysburg Battlefield).. Designing the Mac was historic (maybe). Making 27 a second? Not so much.

BTW, I also find it hillarious and wasteful to mark 'birthplaces' or 'lived here' buildings as historic. There isn't anything historic about where, for example, Steve Jobs or Ben Franklin was born. It's just a house, like so many others. The house itself tends to be standard and generic and nothing special. But someone comes in, redoes it all up to period so you can 'see what it was like'. But that doesn't make it historic either. You could take all that, throw it into a house you built last year, and it would be the same thing. You don't go "Ohhhhh. He had WOOD floors, and the stairwell was thin. That's incredible!"