No. Tradition is no good as an ethical argument. But ethical arguments can be made around forcing ppl to uphold or abandon them. https://twitter.com/CallMeMisterD/status/882653055753134080 …
I have not given much thought to this but yes, I'd sadly say that was unethical. I'd support incentivizing not doing so & protecting them.
-
-
By building into sales of contracts that people could not modernise so buyer knows before buying.
-
But what if the seller doesn't want to potentially reduce the value by reducing the future owner's options?
-
That's where the incentives come in. They should be compensated for agreeing to this.
-
There's also the the question, given housing costs in places like London, of whether mandating the preservation of small houses is elitist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Incentives are fine. But mandates that punish an owner who makes certain aesthetics choices, in the name of tradition?
-
Punishes in what way? I don't know much about this. Ppl should be able to do what they want with their own property.
-
If local laws don't allow you to put a modern window in an old house, and you do anyway, you face fines, other sanctions.
-
Can't say I'm particularly interested in this.I'll come down generally with an interest in protecting history but not at the cost of freedom
-
It's become a critical component of the urban housing cost crisis. Legislating aesthetics frequently blocks creation of new housing supply.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.