I had never heard of "ruin value" before, but I'm surprised that the article makes no mention of the first thing that came to my mind as a critique of the concept.<p>It is clear to me that "ruin value" is a purely subjective and culturally relative idea. We find ancient ruins to be aesthetically pleasing because of the ideas we associate with them and our fascination with a past which is both alien and familiar. Trying to imitate its features in modern architecture is a valid preference, but trying to ensure they will look somewhat like the ruins of today so that they will make "better" ruins in the future is almost comically naïve in my opinion.<p>I for example find the aesthetics of factories and mills of the Industrial Revolution particularly pleasing, but I am well aware that it's because of the way I associate it to certain places and ideas. If I were to time-travel back to 19th century England everyone would be especially confused as to why on Earth I liked those newfangled buildings so much.