What is the deal with society and its ridiculous sentimentality when it comes to old buildings? I can understand why a building might be designated as a historical location if someone who actually mattered and accomplished something had lived there at some point, like an Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, but a lot of historical buildings are held onto merely for the fact that they’re a century old. One hundred years is really an insignificant amount of time in the grand scheme of things. A one hundred year old car is neat and historically relevant; a physical artifact of technological advancement through the ages. A one hundred year old house is just musty-smelling wood that could catch fire at any moment, killing a family of four and their household pets.
I’ve lived in buildings that were 70 or 80 years old, and I’ve never thought to myself “Man I hope they never tear this building down. This one sure is a keeper.” If anything, while I’ve lived in older houses, I’ve spent the entire time wishing I lived in a house that wasn’t drafty and musty all the time. A house that didn’t make me constantly smell like I’m somebody’s great-grandmother. A house that didn’t get obnoxiously hot in the summer and uncomfortably cold during the winter. A house that was closer to being from the same century that all my belonging inside the house were from.
That old house is sitting on top of rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old. Nobody gives a shit about all those old-ass rocks though. Jesus Christ or King Tut might have picked up one of those rocks and given it a little smooch. Dinosaurs might have played a friendly game of kick-the- rock using those very stones. What has more value historically: a rock that Jesus lovingly held in his possession or a house that a few generations of complete nobodies sat around in doing nothing of any relevance. Lumber doesn’t pick up much in the way of intrinsic value the older it gets unless it’s from an endangered species of tree. Old, peeling lead-based paint isn’t much of a hot commodity on the buyers market either I would assume.
So why does society care enough about old-ass buildings as to spend serious money to preserve or move them? After months of tireless research though professionally-bound tomes on the subject, and countless interviews, I’ve managed to find a definitive answer to this question. That answer being: because society are a bunch of stupid dummies. They like to hold onto old garbagey things, due to their love of rare, antique things. It’s an extension of their love of other worthless old things, like vinyl records, vintage clothing and their grandparents. They’d just assume cling to their dial-up connections and baud rates, rather than get with the times and cop that speedy Comcast broadband for downloading all those booby pictures lickety-split.
So in conclusion, old houses are dumb. If you live in an old house you are dumb. I live in an old house, therefore I’m dumb, but I’ve come to accept that. Cassette tapes are dumb. Penny loafers are dumb. Crab grass is fairly dumb. Argyle is a dumb pattern, unless it’s on socks, in which case stop being in a ska band please. Toast is a dumb form for bread to be in. Stop being crispy… nobody likes you Casseroles are dumb. Quiche is dumb, but everyone knows that, obviously. The color chartreuse is so dumb, I’m not even going to explain. Toothpicks are dumb. Butterknives are dumb. Cinder blocks are so dumb, it’s making me quite angry to be frank with you. Cauliflower is dumb, as are cork boards. Don’t even get me started on how dumb beehives are, and this article is so dumb that it just about infuriates me to the point where I want to start breaking things.