Clásica y Moderna, once frequented by literary figures, closes

Preservation "Societies" do nothing. There are only two things that can preserve historic buildings-
Cash and Government Regulation.

There are already several groups that agitate for Preservation. "Societies" if you will. But without government regulation, prohibiting the demolition of important buildings, Societies can do nothing, unless they are rich enough to buy buildings outright.
Many privately owned buildings appear to be protected- until the day they are not.

A few important buildings are owned by the City, and are used as museums or government offices- but seldom smaller residential or commercial buildings like these.
In my opinion there will probably never be a national society for preservation of significant buildings unless there's legislation such a society could rally around and there don't seem to be the votes in getting that sort of thing through the legal processes. Out on the western edge of the spiral galaxy known as the city of Buenos Aires I know of at least three separate campaigning groups - one to each barrio - and none of them seem to work together.

Another contentious issue is of political involvement . Small political movements can gain a lot of publicity from attaching themselves to a preservation campaign and they seem to be trying to push themselves into such groups with increasing regularity. The trouble is that when, say, the "Anarchists for Euthanasia" party start making a lot of noise and getting a lot of publicity about how they want to save the Tamagochi Building or whatever, the other 98% of residents who would never want to be associated with AforE just walk away and the campaign collapses and the building comes down. Why, it's almost as if the property developers themselves are creating objectionable political factions for this very purpose.


It's all about $. In less developed economies like Argentina's whoever can come up with the money, bribes etc. gets what he wants.


Exactly like in "more" developed economies like the USA- where there is more money, and hence, more ability to destroy heritage buildings.
The destruction of Pennsylvania Station in New York was a tragedy of great proportion but it wouldn't happen today. Once the station had been razed there was widespread recognition that a terrible thing had been done. When an attempt was made to tear down Grand Central Terminal Jackie Kennedy led a movement to preserve it - and succeeded. She helped to change attitudes about architecturally important buildings. Now the monumental post office across the street from the current nightmarish Penn Station is being converted into a new Pennsylvania Station so some of the glory of the original station will return. The destruction of the Marlborough-Blenheim Hotel in Atlantic City (you can see the actual implosion in the film Atlantic City) was also a tragedy but there was no-one willing to save the hotel and preserve it. A genteel, old fashioned hotel like that no longer had the clientele to keep it going. Sometimes there are no good solutions. Of the photos in the link you provide, one is not in the US, rather Tokyo. Frank Lloyd Wright's superb Imperial Hotel miraculously survived the gear Kanto Earthquake of 1923 but ironically years later was torn down for development. Many important buildings have been lost in many countries around the world but there is now a greater consciousness of the importance of preserving our heritage. In some places zoning laws and community groups play a role in preservation. These vary from country to country and even municipality to municipality, some communities being more aggressive than others in caring about preservation. Argentina too has benefited from a greater appreciation for its architectural patrimony however weak zoning laws, an unstable economy and widespread corruption work against the best interests of preservation.



The emblematic cafe on the corner of Armenia and Malabia has now been closed for over 4 months and the local is looking unkempt . I doubt if someone will pay the exorbiant rent they are asking for it at 300,000 pesos per month . This local needs a lot of repairs and any interested party will want a favourable agreement.


I doubt if someone will pay the exorbiant rent they are asking for it at 300,000 pesos per month .
When business A is closing because it cannot pay extraorbitant rent to business B, then business B must be doing pretty well, since it can afford to charge an extraorbitant rent, no?


Perhaps an enterprising bunch of culture vultures will, on behalf of the rest of us, "discover" a couple of places
that may hold potential for being a bit like the one(s) that are gone or soon to be gone. It may be that only
by this manner can newer "in" places evolve and flourish. Granted, I don't know how any place survives by
serving only coffee and medialunas, here or anywhere. Sorry to learn of the losses to date.