APA's Daily Planning News picked up this article from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel: '50s buildings in S. Florida: They're 'historic,' but are they worth preserving?
Buildings and neighborhoods built in the 1950's and 1960's are becoming 50 years old, the benchmark for consideration for historic preservation. (There are other criteria as well, like historical or architectural significance, but 50 years is pretty much a minimum age.)
In some places "surviving" buildings and neighborhoods from the 50's and 60's are common, like Florida which experienced a building boom about that time. Dallas and Fort Worth certainly did as well. So, these buildings and neighborhoods aren't "rare" or "unique" to the region or state.
So . . . . should buildings, neighborhoods, and places from the 1950's and 1960's be preserved? Even if they are "modern"? Even if they are commonplace to a larger area? Even if we have color photographs and videos of them? Will kids growing up in the 00's and 10's be able to appreciate those times without examples of the built environment?