I’m a big fan of Lynne’s (we were at AEI at the same time in the 1990s and she was always a pleasure to talk to). But I have a bit of a problem with her argument. It’s not that I think the free market should be unfettered when it comes to historic landmarks. Indeed, I think one of the greatest travesties in the history of architecture was the destruction of the old Penn Station in New York. Some things deserve to be preserved. Alas, I have no great 6-point test for what should be saved and what should be felled and I am fully aware that the whole issue is shot-through with subjectivity (I don’t think the church is “ugly” with quotation marks. I think it is hideous in every way). But Lynne’s argument gives the impression of being laissez-faire when that is exactly what it isn’t. She writes:

Trying to rewrite the history of art — by felling “ugly” buildings or channeling government subsidies to pornographic “art” — is about as smart as trying to control the free market. All attempts will fail. Only fools would try.

But the question here is whether the government should forbid the owners from selling it to buyers who would probably want to tear it down. By using the law, in the name of “architectural diversity,” to preserve the building is rewriting history too (does that mean it’s not “smart”?).

Lots of buildings are torn down for lots of reasons, some of them aesthetic. The history of architecture, like the history of cities, is the story of buildings that are built and the story of buildings that are torn down. The old Penn Station is part of New York’s history just as much as Madison Square Garden is. Since when is “history” only about those things still with us? Archduke Ferdinand is history and he’s even more gone than the Old Penn Station.

Moreover, the government isn’t proposing to raze the building out of some Soviet-style agenda. Indeed, one could easily argue that the government is merely staying out of the path of history as it unfolds. Lynne’s formulation has government being laissez-fair toward this church being analogous to subsidizing pornographic art. It seems to me her analogy is almost exactly backwards. The government wants to subsidize ugly art — in this case a Brutalist church — in the name of “architectural diversity” and on behalf of a very small number of experts who think they know better than everyone else. That’s what it does, more or less, when it funds pictures of bullwhips up rectums.

Again, I have no principled objection to historic preservation. In fact, I support historic preservation, even though what I would preserve is different than what Lynne or somebody else might preserve. My objection is to the Lynne’s claim that she doesn’t want to edit history too. We all do, and there’s no getting around it.