Interesting piece from @awalkerinLA. The answer to this problem is a preservation program that sees beyond buildings and engages in meaningful legacy business protection, like SF is starting to. (1/3) https://www.curbed.com/2021/01/taix-restaurant-los-angeles-preservation.html

The idea is to preserve how a place is used, rather than only its building. When we preserve only buildings, we often overlook certain significance, or create a false equivalency between the quality of a place’s architecture and its overall importance.

https://sfosb.org/legacy-business 

The fetishization of beautiful architecture affects how we see Taix as non-significant, but it also leads us to overlook more significant sites because they are mundane. Take the intersection of Florence and Normandie for instance, which remains undesignated 30 years after 1992.

Lastly, the idea that preservationists interfere with the construction of affordable housing is complex. The majority of the city is non historic or even vacant. Advocating for a place that means something to you doesn’t make you a NIMBY. This pejorative should be used carefully.

Overall though, I agree that this profession has insane shortcomings, particularly in LA. I am particularly frustrated with how often preservation is weaponized by the white and wealthy to protect property values, rather than places that mean something to more people.