past and future demolition

People who complain about being controlled by the past might get a chuckle reading about the extent to which modern Rome is still controlled by ancient Rome:

In Rome, modern progress is often slowed down by the past.
Italy’s robust preservation laws make it difficult to renovate, remove or otherwise tinker with anything deemed to be of historical significance, and that includes most of central Rome. The laws have protected the capital from newer architectural eyesores but have left it ill-equipped to deal with the stresses of a modern metropolis.
Rome currently has only two modest metro lines to serve its 2.5 million people, leaving the city’s streets regularly clogged with buses, cars and scooters whose pollution coats the historical monuments with grime. Neither line passes through the heart of the old city, an area always teeming with tourists.
But successive attempts by city planners to unclog the center by building underground parking garages and tunnels to handle traffic have run afoul of historical preservationists just about every time a shovel has hit the earth.

Geez. It reminds me of the way civil libertarian crackpots and assorted “constitutional preservationists” (myself included) go berserk every time the federal government tries to violate the Bill of Rights. What gives the past the right to control the present?
One exasperated Roman bureaucrat complains that it’s like a parody:

“It’s like a parody,” complains Enrico Testa, the chairman of Roma Metropolitane SpA, the city-owned company that operates Rome’s subway. “There are treasures that are underground that would stay buried forever if we didn’t have to dig. But as soon as we uncover them, our work gets blocked.”

While my analogy to the Constitution is meant as humor, I do tend towards Originalism, because I think that there’s no way not to be directed by the past, at least to a certain extent. How else could we know that things we take for granted, like ownership of property or the right to free speech, are legitimate?
Totalitarians, of course, care very little about the past.

Breaking ground in Rome wasn’t always so difficult. When the city started building its first metro in the 1930s, dictator Benito Mussolini refused to let history impede his master plan to create a modern Roman empire. Work didn’t pause even when diggers clipped off a corner of the foundation of the Colosseum. The plans were crude: Engineers cut a canal alongside the ruins of the Roman Forum. Truckloads of dirt containing many ancient artifacts were carted off and dumped.

Gee. Sounds like Ceaucescu (who demolished 15,000 historic buildings to make Bucharest resemble a Stalinist version of Paris) No doubt Mussolini would have had the same regard for the Bill of Rights had he been elected and reelected president of the United States. (Even the benign FDR had serious, um, issues.)
Those who would level the past worry me. Of course, at the other extreme are those who would prevent the future by preventing growth. Whether in the name of stopping “global warming” or “urban sprawl,” they invoke “the environment” in the same way that archaeologists invoke terms like “cultural heritage.” If an apparently vacant lot has priceless architectural ruins underneath it, I’m all for preserving its cultural and educational value, as long as the owner is compensated. But if it’s just because activists think it should always be “green,” and they want it to remain that way without compensating the owner, that’s not letting the past control the future; that’s strangling the future, and disrespecting the past by ignoring settled constitutional principles and the law of property ownership. Arguing that “nature” was here first and that we should therefore be controlled by “nature” is like saying that the lack of electricity and plumbing were here first, and that therefore we should all live in a state of nature like Ted Kaczynski. Saying “no culture” should control culture is primitivism, and its advocates (condemned repeatedly infra) want anti-civilization to replace civilization.
Preserving and respecting the past is civilization. Blocking the future is uncivilized, and has a lot in common with demolishing the past.
It may sound like a paradox, but I think it’s common sense.


Posted

in

by

Tags: