There have been numerous books and articles written on post World War II changes. Here is one paragraph that sums it up:

"Building on the economic base left after the war, American society
became more affluent in the postwar years than most Americans could have
imagined in their wildest dreams before or during the war. Public
policy, like the so-called GI Bill of Rights passed in 1944, provided
money for veterans to attend college, to purchase homes, and to buy
farms. The overall impact of such public policies was almost
incalculable, but it certainly aided returning veterans to better
themselves and to begin forming families and having children in
unprecedented numbers."

One author calls it the Golden Age of Capitalism. I realize this doesn't specifically answer your question, but to understand the mentality that led us to tear down buildings, you have to understand what the country was going through at that time.

I'm not sure more "old" buildings were torn down post WWII. Seems like buildings had a short life span beginning in the late 19th to early 20th centuries too. Madison Square Garden, for example, was originally built in 1879, rebuilt in 1890, then rebuilt again in 1925. I assume changing needs (new uses, larger capacity, updated electric/heat/ventilation, fire safety) were as pressing then as they are now. It wasn't always about wanting a more modern look.

Hi, DebraK, I just got back from a couple of days in Buffalo. Very sad about the deaths at the park. Now they will lower the speed limit and put up barriers after a tragic accident,

Same thing here in Charlotte. A lot of history was also torn down in the name of development, especially uptown. There are no uptown department stores or really any type of shopping anymore.. Wasn't the 1950's, but it definitely happened a lot here with places DH remembers from his HS years. Yes, it seems in Buffalo that, to use an analogy, if there was a fork in the road, they seemed to pick the wrong one every time: skyway, parkway, stadium in Orchard Park, etc. But things are getting better.

One thing I am learning from my current work is that retrofitting infrastructure is challenging and expensive. That is why with planning and public input there can at least be other voices heard.

The main thing that saved the historic fabric of Philadelphia was the Erie canal, and the shift of power as a port city away from Philadelphia to New York. That, at the beginning, slowed economic development, and then there were decades of poverty and benign neglect. Philadelphia was spared one elevated expressway intersecting the city partly by economics, and it delayed another enough that the highway was submerged rather than elevated (I think based upon the negative impact of the elevated highway through Boston which has since been submerged.)

As far as the Darwin Martin house is concerned, it was a private residence, and if nobody wants it at a particular time, or it ends up in a bad neighborhood, or other factors, they are going to be vulnerable. There are still once beautiful houses here in neighborhoods that no one who could really afford to restore them want to live in.

There was recently at least one boarded up FLW in Gary, Indiana--but who wants to live where it is? One of Louis Kahn's few residences was recently threatened because it was in poor shape, and the appreciation of brutalism is limited--most people don't want to live in a house that most resembles his Trenton Bathhouse, which was also threatened at one point. Luckily the residence is in a decent suburban area. Currently no one in any sort of official position is paying one bit of attention to any of the houses in Philadelphia from the first wave of new infill revitalization (1960-1975-ish). Some of the modernist houses are safe, primarily because they are parts of homeowners associations with restrictions about what can be done for consistency's sake, but not so much that they need to be preserved.

I live in one of a series of four modernist houses (1965) in a partial block of other variations of 2 to 8 examples of each, and quite honestly even though the architect had a sigificant presence at a particular time the owner can do whatever they want to any of these house pretty much with impugnity, because they are just "old houses" right now, and not considered "historic" in any sense of the word by the city. One of my neighbors owned two houses and when he wanted to alter the back of one of them was sued by one of his other neighbors who insisted it would block light to her yard. So she cited set-backs and % of lot coverage and certain current standards to stop him.

His solution, was to get a demolition permit for one of the houses, which alleviated the set back and % of lot coverage issues.

The city took her part of the suit seriously. However they granted the demolition permit without considering the house he wanted to demolish at all. The house wasn't historic enough for them to care about because it wasn't from the 1800s.

As it turned out, he did not demolish the house and was using that permit to gain leverage against the single neighbor who was suing him because she erroneously thought that it would block light from her house (he actually had satellite photos that proved otherwise.)

Anyway, the short form is that we are doing the same thing now, I think.

I recommend that you read The Futurist Manifesto to get an idea of some of the motivation people (especially artists and designers) have regarding new and innovative designs. I have taken two courses in the history of architecture and two in the history of furniture and am therefore aware of many beautiful buildings and designs throughout history that are no longer with us. While I agree that it is good to save some of what is old and beautiful, it is also good to replace some of it. I have never lived where there were many buildings torn down (growing up in Texas and then moving to California), and so I am mostly familiar with the new, as I have lived mostly in areas that were expanding outwards. I did get extremely tired of Victorians during the 12 years I lived in San Francisco - I found them tedious and tiring and discovered that I felt much more energy when I was around architecture that was more sleek and modern - but that's just my personal reaction, and I responded by leaving San Francisco.

The Italian Futurists were a bit extreme in wanting to destroy what was old, but then they also realized that whatever they built would also have an end in time like everything else.

I remember seeing many beautiful mansions along Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City in the 1970s that were eventually torn down for modern high rises, and that made me sad, but then it was also inevitable, and everything is temporal. For things to stay the same, growth must be limited, and I think this is good but not likely to happen. Then there is Detroit...

Thank you! You have all given me so much to read and think about. Real quick....Palimpsest, I agree there is not much love for 1960 or 70's architecture. I guess what is out of favor at the moment gets torn down. gssciencechick, I was just there the week before and commented to DH how it's kind of weird you can just step into an expressway. We were looking at the old Butlers Mansion on Nottingham Terrace. Have you seen the cool fence being put up? I said I could not stand to live there because of the expressway. Very sad on the death. It can happen anyway though. Near my house in 'burbs, someone was killed on the bike path when a drunk guy on a motorcycle left the road. You can't put barriers everywhere.

Sounds like Buffalo is not the only place with this issue. As gs said it just seems like we made a series of mistakes. I just wish I could get into people's heads and ask why. Was there no one who spoke up?

For decades they discussed tearing this down. The only reason they didn't was because it would've cost too much to demolish it:

While this is considered a masterpiece, a lot of people would still hate it enough right now to tear it down if they thought it was in the way of something:

Louis Kahn is an acquired taste. If the Exeter library is as quiet and the lighting there as soft, cozy, & enveloping as the Yale Museum of British Art, I would be in the Keep It camp. Love the visual & acoustic quietness of the Yale museum's interior.

New world vs. old world. WWII was caused by the mess left over at the end of WWI and all the old diplomatic ties of European countries. Many American families had gone to Europe TWICE to bail out the old world and its problems.

So....the 1950s was the time for new, shiny and fast! That's what Americans wanted after WWII. This was a New Age and America was connecting every part of the country with super highways...and even going out into space! Everything old was left behind for the new.

It makes sense, when you think about it, but I'm with you....it's a shame so many things were torn down in the process.

A big part of it was, though, that they looked at this:

like we look at this: