Reflections on the Demolition of "Mudhouse Mansion"

This is a disheartening article.

Perhaps more depressing than the house's destruction — which I've long anticipated — are David Mast's apathy-exuding comments:

David Mast, the son of Jeane Mast, who owns Mudhouse Mansion along Mud House Road in Pleasant Township, sees the home as 'just a farmhouse,' and one he was never particularly fond of.

Mast told the uneventful stories of his experience in the home while it was being torn down Monday by Kull Excavating. 

'That house is not my cup of tea,' Mast said, adding that it would cost millions to make the house safe and livable. 

Mast said he’s never understood people’s draw to the home[.]

I dispute Mr. Mast's judgment. Surely, during his drives through the Ohio countryside, he has observed many farmhouses; that none quite resemble his farmhouse should indicate something about its significance.

But, alas, Mast's view predominates in contemporary America. Truly significant buildings are "just farmhouses." The great works of philosophy and literature are "just old books," and the thinkers who penned them are "just dead guys." Our culture has become terribly, terribly ahistorical, willing to fling away anything perceived as irrelevant. Americans ought to read about Chesterton's fence.

This passage, from another article about the demolition, also bothers me:

The Lancaster Historical Society said Monday that the structure was not a historical landmark. Even they were surprised by the outcry from the public.

Simply because a building is excluded from the National Register of Historic Places does not mean it lacks significance. The National Register is not an exhaustive listing of "historical landmarks," nor is every listed structure, frankly, noteworthy. The reasoning, "Building X isn't listed on the National Register (or a local register); therefore, building X isn't historic" — common among even self-proclaimed lovers of history — reveals an ignorance about the Register itself, and about what the word "historic" truly means.

I've encountered some individuals who decry the National Register as a violation of property rights. They ought to visit the program's website:

• National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property. 

• National Register listing does not lead to public acquisition or require public access. 

• A property will not be listed if, for individual properties, the owner objects, or for districts, a majority of property owners object.

The National Register of Historic Places no more undermines property rights than does a library's local history section.