I see they built the J Edgar Hoover building twice? 
Please, tear both of those down.
The Kennedy Center. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts - Wikipedia
Don’t tell the Aussies. Do tell the Kiwis, though, they’ll get a kick out of it.
Well then, the same for Gehrys.
In general, it’s a matter of what is judged to be worth maintaining, more so than what is built to last. America has very few all-stone temples and fortifications that can weather a few centuries in neglect before being valued again.
I was reading from the title rather than the OP content, I guess.
Brutalism will be rediscovered and appreciated once again, just as the ornate Beaux-Arts and [Whatever] Revival structures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were reviled in the 1940s and 1950s, but seen in a new light 30 to 40 years later.
In slower-growing or shrinking cities, there will be a lot of “preservation by neglect”, where land occupied by older structures won’t face economic pressure for redevelopment. Expect this in many cities in the US Rust Belt (in Buffalo and Pittsburgh, a struggling economy in the past 50-60 years has been cited as a major factor for the preservation of so many older structures, just like in Havana, Cuba), much of the midwestern United States, third-tier and smaller Canadian cities like Hamilton, Winnipeg, Halifax, and Regina, and third and fourth-tier European cities like Sheffield, Charleroi, Dortmund and the like.
That’s interesting. I suppose part of the reason why most of Old Montreal is so well-preserved is that “downtown” moved to its northwest, leaving the area to stagnation and neglect; accordingly, its architectural fabric went mostly undamaged by redevelopment (with certain exceptions such as the Banque Nationale on Place d’Armes) until, by the time its economic recovery rolled around, preservation had already become a priority.
Incidentally, not to beat my own drum, but an important suite of Modernist architecture that I expect to be preserved for a long time to come is the Montreal metro – partly because the STM has a commitment to preserving it, partly because you can’t exactly tear down a metro station and put something else in its place (unlike cities like New York or London, we have neither the resources nor the growth-related need to repeatedly alter our routes and abandon stations).
It’s one of the more beautiful suites of International Style, Brutalist, and post-modern buildings around, and it’s historically significant as one of the main exporters of the concept of the highly attractive, impressively designed metro station from Russia to the West (Stockholm was another).
If you’re still reading this thread, who hated Beaux-Arts and [Whatever] Revival structures in the '40s and '50s? Architects or “average people”? While you may well be correct, I’d be surprised if your average passerby in the '40s really “reviled” the style.
Many skyscrapers are built in the Glass & Steel Ugly School of architecture.
Um? Faneuil Hall was built around 1742.
If you mean Quincy Market, it was built in the 1820s.
I’m not sure when the North & South Market buildings were constructed, though.