A so-so and rambling argument against updating designs
If you are chronically online enough, you may encounter Facebook posts which reminisce old interior designs of fast food chains like McDonald’s and Taco Bell; the comment sections are full of nostalgic commenters.
I am not one who feels nostalgic of those photos; I didn’t grow up with Taco Bell as it did not have branches in Indonesia back then and, if I remember correctly, older interior design of Indonesian McDonald’s differed from the one in the photos. Not to mention I don’t find the designs aesthetically appealing.
But, I do agree the changes are regrettable.
One thing I love in life is diversity (not to be confused with having lots of brands which sell similar products with similar prices and quality, creating a delusion of choices). I love it when I have access to a wide-range of cuisines and I certain love it when I am surrounded by different languages, cultures and religions (assuming self-segregation isn’t rampant), as I genuinely find it enriching.
In this case, I also love being surrounded by different aesthetics. To see many different interior design and architectural styles everywhere is a feast for my eyes. No matter how much I love certain styles more than the others, I would find it monotonous and boring if they are the dominant, if not only, styles. The diversity — a mixture of old and new, minimalistic and ornamental, colourful and monochromatic — brings vibrancy to our physical environment.
Yes, I realise fast food chain restaurants are for-profit entities that sell mass-produced products which serve little or no “cultural” values; as much as I enjoy junk foods, I do believe those establishments cheapen our cultures.
But, their branches would be far more interesting if they look different from each other. Some have 70’s decor, some with 90’s decor and others embrace the latest trends. While they are still symptoms of commercialisation (and not worthy of heritage statuses), I imagine patronising them would be a more unique experience.
Obviously, there are good reasons to update designs. As painful as for me to say, safety and health issues and lack of funding to preserve and maintain are good reasons to renovate or destroy them altogether. I have to be pragmatic about it. But, is it really the case with every case?
How many of those renovations are truly pragmatic? And how many of them are driven by hatred of anything old?
I have seen posts showcasing houses replacing their old-school architectural designs with the newer ones; the comment sections were filled people accusing detractors of inability to move on, insinuating that everything new is good and everything old is bad. I have definitely encountered people who confidently and inaccurately claim anyone who study history and archeology are stuck in the past, insinuating that the only way to move forward is to forget the past.
Those personal experiences tell me some people hate anything old just for the sake of it. But, whether they are the dominant force in their respective societies, I can’t say.
And here comes the tangents.
.
.
Now, what if those people — regardless of their motivations — own those properties? What if they buy or inherit those old houses, which are now legally theirs? Surely, they have the right to alter them the way they desire.
Well, it is more complicated.
If they buy the old houses because those are the most or only affordable ones around, if they inherit the houses and renovations make them easier to sell, I cannot blame them for revamping the designs.
You can control their decisions if their houses are designated as historic sites or are located in historic zones. While I don’t believe legality determines innate rightness of something, it sure gives a leverage to control people’s behaviours.
But, I don’t support regulating the interiors. Unlike the exteriors, which one can contentiously argue as parts of the public spaces, the interiors belong to the private ones. Regulating them can lead to a slippery slope in which invasiveness of our private lives is normalised.
If people buy those old and culturally significant houses despite having other financially viable options, I still think we don’t have the right to control what they do with their properties (again, unless we have cultural preservation laws on our side).
But, considering they have less excuses to revamp, that also means they are more deserving of the backlashes.
