Should old derelict buildings be destroyed or persevered?

[robocop666]

Bandstands are unused anymore. They just sit there and nobody has used them in a century. A baths place near me was unused for 30 years till they turned it into a cafe.

Dun laoghaire baths

Blackrock baths. Last used 1987 and the diving board is gone now.

bandstand. There are 3 near me unused in a century.

[exitseven]

It depends. If somebody can come up with a plan to repurpose an old building it should be explored. I live near an old mill town where there were a lot of textile mills. These mills all weit out of business years ago. They were sturdy brick buildings with high ceilings. Many were turned into apartments or condos.

[robocop666]

Dun laoghaire baths was shut for 30 years and only reopened recently. It was just a derelict building for decades.

[Lionman95]

I would say as long as they can be old buildings and constructs should be preserved but in a way that they are used in some way. Just preserving old buildings to preserve them without a use to the community is a waste.

[robocop666]

bandstands and baths are a waste.

[Lionman95]

Yes if they are closed but if they opened them and used them for something I would say they can be of use but I agree with you that just keeping them around putting in them for preservation is a waste.

[purplepoppy]

It depends on whether they have a real historical significance or if they're just dilapidated. A problem is quite often we don't actually know who owns these buildings.

[SaoirseS]

Let communities decide what they want to do with them.

[robocop666]

laws prevent people doing what they want.

[DryGermanGuy]

It depends at what I am looking at. A modern concrete eyesore like in your picture or a half-timbered house like this:

[Anonymous]

They should be saved.