James Bayly, of Roanoke, is a former small business owner and has a degree in industrial design from the School of Architecture at Georgia Tech.

Many of the comments about the proposed new Art Museum of Western Virginia say that it should look more like the buildings already there, and/or be built somewhere other than downtown. Most buildings (new or old) are not really great architecture, even though they may have been appropriate in their time.

To copy or imitate the older ones just because they're there is to perpetuate mediocrity in the name of nostalgia. It's the kind of approach that produces some people's mental fog of fond memories and wishful thinking about Victory Stadium. Not everything that's old is automatically worth preserving.

The great buildings of ancient Greece and the cathedrals of Europe were and are magnificent examples of good architecture, because they were functional, well-proportioned, appropriate to their culture and structurally the best that could be done with the materials and technology of their day.

We are no longer constrained by those materials and our culture is vastly different. We should take advantage of the capabilities we now have that were not available in earlier times.

Art in any of its many forms is frequently about exploring new ideas, philosophies and ways of looking at the world. It's appropriate for a museum built to house art to do likewise. Many buildings, musical compositions and works of art that are now generally considered outstanding and important were widely criticized when they were introduced. The victims range from Beethoven to Picasso to Frank Lloyd Wright.

The proposed location of the museum could be the best thing to happen to downtown Roanoke since Center in the Square revitalized the City Market area and kept downtown from becoming a ghost town, after most of the merchants had moved out to malls. Having the museum across the pedestrian bridge from Hotel Roanoke would be a big plus.

Putting the museum somewhere else in the city would nearly eliminate any economic benefit to the downtown area. Although some of our citizens may not believe it, many tourists do visit cities primarily to see their museums. When a museum building is as artistically creative as its contents, the attraction is doubled.

There's nothing inherently wrong with putting old and new design together. Sometimes the contrast makes both more interesting. A widely accepted principle of design is that good designs of any period are compatible.

Those who want to hunker down in the architecture of the past and never put anything new next to it are trying to stop the flow of time. Unfortunately, for an individual or a city, this happens only when they die. I don't believe anyone wants that for Roanoke.