The Crystal Palace, in Crystal Palace, was a huge glass structure that burnt down in 1936. Should they rebuild it?


Originally built in Hyde Park in 1851 to house the Great Exhibition, it was moved to what is now Crystal Palace (what was then Penge Common) in 1854. Unfortunately, it burnt down in a fire in 1936, and has left the area a corner of a park with some grand stairs and a flat field. There has been talk of rebuilding this goliath greenhouse, but most talk has gone quiet. But the question is, should we?


Well, before we answer, let's ask why this is a good idea. The obvious response would be tourism. Imagine the amounts of people that would flock to south-east London to see the newly rebuilt Crystal Palace. If the government charged for entry, think of how much money they would make. Another reason people would come is to see the gigantic glass building that this attraction is. The square footage was 990,000, and the whole thing was made out of iron and glass.


However, there is a reason why it shouldn’t be built. First of all, there’s a price problem. As stated before, this is a huge building, and would cost a lot of money to make, especially since there’s no real demand for it.


So, should it be rebuilt? It’s a bit of a crazy idea to rebuild it, but no one can deny the tourism that would come from it. Despite this however, my answer is no. The Crystal Palace has a great legacy, with a museum meters away from it’s old site, and a whole region of London named after it, no ones going to forget this huge structure any time soon. The old site of the structure is a popular public space, and at least there are still stairs to remember it by. 

But where this debate really comes down to is that we should not dwell on the past, and try to relive it, or rather live what someone else has lived. We should keep the past in the past and that is why we should not rebuild Crystal Palace.