With the imminent knocking down of the 'Get Carter' car park, why are we destroying bold examples of 1960s

Question

Brutallist architecture rather than more buildings of the 1970s, which were often badly watered down versions of modernism, arguably reflecting the relative mediocrity of much of the arts at the time as opposed to the robust optimism of the 1960s or the postmodernism of the 1980s? The best 1960s buildings have become trendy in London whereas the blanket destruction of many fine examples across the rest of the country is no better than the vandalism that sometimes put them there in the first place when many fine older buildings were destroyed. There are certainly many bad example of flats built at the time that, I think, should be destroyed but these are usually ones constructed with small budgets and lesser architects. It's no use to blanketly demonise the 1960s- a brave, bold, inventive time in British architecture- look at James Stirling's Engineering Building at Leicester University for example.

Answer 1

In my experience, somebody is going to like every old building.

Unless the building has some outstanding value--it was the site of an earth-changing historical moment, or it has been considered one of the finest examples of its style of architecture--then I think it's unduly restrictive to prevent tearing it down and replacing it with a structure that will meet contemporary needs.

And being a shooting location for "Get Carter" doesn't quite meet that measure.

Answer 2

Because they are hideous monstrosities