Last January 11 the Alejandro de la Sota Foundation, which has "the goal to preserve and disseminate" the work of one of the masters of Spanish architecture of the twentieth century (Pontevedra 1913, Madrid 1996), announced that despite some attempts to prevent it, the Guzman House (Algete, 1972) had been demolished by his heirs. And more worrying, that this house that received the numerous visit and the admiration of students and professionals from all over the world -with the pride of its first owner- had been supplanted by another, by the way, remarkably vulgar and irrelevant. The statement lamented the lack of culture, sensitivity and protection, the disinterest and the chain failure that had allowed this exemplary work to disappear forever.

Social networks have been buzzing about the news ever since. The scandal has been huge. The surprise and indignation among architects has been enormous. All national newspapers have picked up this information (it is not by far the first case), the opinion of experts, analysis of deans of architects associations, statements of more authoritative architects and some other political manager . And not a few veiled accusations, timid accusations and 'looks elsewhere' perhaps to silence not a little bad conscience. For it should be remembered that to reach this status before it had to pass through the hands of a few architects, visas, licenses. Nobody said anything. Everything has been perfectly legal.

Perhaps this is not the tribune to defend the exemplary nature of the emblematic Casa Guzmán with the lexical ammunition that architects usually wield and is alien to the reader. Let us ask for some complicity. And perhaps, since it is within reach, to review what has been said with enough lucidity in those media. But yes, after the thick discussion in social networks, heated in the corridors of architects and in the opinion forums of the digital press, ask some questions and if possible, raise some useful idea. And with the obligatory brevity of these lines.

What has gone wrong? Why does contemporary architecture not attract the same appreciation as older architecture? When does a building deserve protection? Does age alone count? Why are recognition and protection immediate in other areas of culture? Do we have the right to demand public protection of private property? And, above all, is there anything else we can do to avoid new cases?

There is a consensus that architecture (of all times) is a cultural asset, it transforms society, contributes to understanding it, improves our lives. With its successes and its failures. The successes are a step forward (often also the failures). They deserve study, emulation, admiration and also protection. They are a bequest. They are part of our cultural heritage. It is obvious that not all architecture deserves protection by the fact of authorship. Neither the most recent, nor the oldest. However, prevention and prudence should be exercised before making any decision.

Time is the deciding factor, it gives us a better perspective, it 'puts test', 'puts us in our place'. It is a decisive factor, of course, but not the only one. Otherwise we would lose a lot of recent architecture B . And we cannot afford it. Future generations could accuse us of carelessness and insensitivity. We must demand a perhaps more active work -as in fact is already beginning to happen- from professional, academic and cultural bodies, to explain to society why and what modern architecture deserves to be preserved. Then will come the how. And it is the responsibility of the administrations to protect and promote the best architecture through appropriate legislation. And to conserve it. It is not difficult to understand when it comes to public buildings. No one would refuse to have part of their taxes allocated to the protection of a valuable public building. Examples abound.

At the risk of creating controversy, let us now try to put ourselves in the shoes of the owner of one of these works, whether he is aware of its value or not, whether he appreciates it or not. Sometimes, the only thing that returns the recognition is a 'hot potato', an accumulation of administrative obstacles, overprotection and technical immobilism. Worse still, there is little or nothing at all financial aid. Perhaps it is understandable that some decide to act at night.

Obtaining in return more incentives and exemptions, more public aid, could be a solution. An example B would be, perhaps, the National Historic Preservation Act of the United States and its National Register of Historic Places. Being included in the list provides social honor, but also tax incentives and tax exemptions for donations for rehabilitation, access to credits and federal funds for their preservation, and professional financial aid to conserve them with technical criteria. And that, if only because of this favorable tax treatment, their destruction is avoided, for the benefit of all.

Now, are we willing?