I've never found them to be charming. The cute seems tawdry, the wow doesn't wow me, the dead eyed patrons are only slightly less interesting than the bored staff. There are some exceptions: sometimes kids are chuffed and their excitement is warming. Part of what makes parks unappealing is that I've known employees and have some inside perspective. It's not a nice story. And so, the Old Country seems much the same, but larger.

Americans rate European life so highly (in part) because the buildings from previous eras are so striking and attractive. If all of the U.S. looked like U.S. postwar construction, the country would still impress more or less as it does. If all of Europe looked like its postwar construction, Americans would be less likely to admire European policies and political institutions. Yes I know about Lille, and contemporary Spanish architecture, but in reality most Americans would think of Europe as some kind of dump.

This is an old idea for me which I've rolled around a bit thinking about the possible consequences of advances in materials science that promise longer lasting concrete due to formulations that enhance structure at the nano level. Current concrete is good for about 100 years, it is said, but these new materials may last 10 times as long. Will new buildings using such materials be more carefully designed? It's one thing to throw up a concrete utility box that you don't expect to be in service for more than a few decades, and quite another if it might last a few centuries.

I shudder to think of the consequences for American culture of the future if it exists in the shadow of centuries old buildings like Europe does now, especially if that future America is too poor to build new buildings on par with the old, instead basking in the faint warmth of bygone glory, squatters in the temples and palaces of a lost era.