When I lived in Italy, I was awestruck by the beauty and majesty of its architectural and cultural wonders. Over the centuries, these treasures have been dutifully restored and maintained.
Italians understand and appreciate their rich heritage and want to preserve it for all to see. In fact, there are strict laws that govern what buildings can and can’t be torn down, and renovations must adhere to strict rules that maintain the integrity of the original structure. Even the colors used to paint the exteriors of buildings are regulated so that there is uniformity and cohesion in the country’s historic city centers.
Salt Lake City is, obviously, a youngster in comparison and can’t offer residents and visitors a similar experience. However, our city does have a unique history reflecting the local culture and representing the dedication and hard work of the early settlers.
It is therefore incomprehensible as to why there is inevitably a debate in Utah about whether to restore and maintain a historical site or to tear it down and replace it with some anonymous modern structure.
The current controversy over the Utah Theater is a case in point.
“It’s too costly to restore,” goes the argument. Really? Is it impossible to come up with a solution?
Why, for example, can’t we do what Italy does and set aside funds from our booming tourist industry that are specifically targeted for the restoration of historic structures throughout the state? Italy’s Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Tourism exists expressly for this purpose.
Consider this: It is estimated that one-third (or more) of the world’s cultural treasures are located in Italy, so any talk of, “It’s too expensive” to restore one historic theater in Salt Lake City just doesn’t fly.
Linda Marion, Millcreek