Save Hangar One Committee

Here's what I emailed to the Mercury News and to Fisher:
 
Fisher's article lists some of the good reasons for
keeping Hangar One (and ignores some other good
reasons). Odd she concludes they're not good reasons.
I too appreciate parks, college campuses, medical
centers, etc., but why would one have to be built
where Hangar One is located (assuming that one day
NASA leaves Moffett Field)? I don't mean to sound
cynical, but there are other places for parks, etc.,
and there's only one Hangar One--why zero on on that
particular spot and say it's got to be used for
something else that can actually be constructed
somewhere else? Nobody is going to move Hangar One
somewhere else. Why tear down something that's so
visually striking, and so gets people who don't know
its history to start asking questions about it, and
replace it with something of a sort that already
exists in many other places, that would no doubt be
visually bland and blend into the landscape like most
everything else?
 
She says she's in favor of historical preservation,
but then seems to contradict herself by saying "...we
[risk] becom[ing] architectural pack rats, unwilling
to throw any structure away, even when it has outlived
its usefulness, even to make room for something new
and better." With rationales like "usefulness", "new",
and "better", no building older than one or two
hundred years would be allowed to stand, and no
historical building would be allowed to exist without
being "used" for something. Imagine--no more ancient
castles, forts, Hopi villages, etc. "New" isn't what
history is about, by its very nature, so to say that
buildings have to be new to be worth keeping,
instantly wipes out the whole concept of architectural
preservation.
 
I think Fisher's reasoning is a little confused.