what i mean to say by "while they are historic and beloved today that was not always the case." is that people often complained about them in the era that they were built, because people back then also did not like the new cheap stuff and had rose tinted glasses about the good old days.
As a general example, New York's iconic brownstones were also complained about in their era because they were prone to crumbling and flaking, and yet now they are beloved pieces of city history worth millions of dollars. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-t...
Fixing up housing and selling it to richer people is a new concept. It used to be you would build new things and clear out the old. Of course when we make legal systems that favor the status quo, suddenly it becomes a luxury prospect to live in the few good units of whats left since we aren’t allowing for any more. Historical significance arguments basically emerged in our society along with the very ordinances that prevented these same historical structures from ever being built again. There would be no reason to deem something historical and protect it if it was constantly being renewed as it is, after all.
As a general example, New York's iconic brownstones were also complained about in their era because they were prone to crumbling and flaking, and yet now they are beloved pieces of city history worth millions of dollars. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-t...