Built time

A lot of postwar buildings, especially in places that were decimated in the war, physically and economically, were built for the short term: get 'em up. Yet the immediate work, especially some of the civic and institutional parts of it, was good, even great, reflecting the influence of movements like CIAM that enjoyed a rebirth in the first decade after the war. What's being torn down in the UK now is mostly the work of the 1960s and 1970s. Not everything "Brutal" was bad, but the UK had more than its share. A lot of it was also put up with the expectation that it would be pulled down when the lease expired in 20 or 25 years. That's not true, of course, of civic and institutional buildings, often equally dreadful. Does dreadful deserve a place in preservation? We preserve a lot of older buildings of no special merit, considering them part of the fabric of the city. Is this an argument for preserving more recent ugliness, or is it better to acknowledge the blight and get rid of it? (But is blight not also an inherently subjective word? Should we save some of it just to find out if someone else will like it better?)