The dark shroud of progress

One after another, the buildings and street-scapes of Melbourne are demolished, gutted or significantly altered in the name of progress, a sterile justification almost universally synonymous with commercial imperative. Here's a short missive in response to 'Windsor gets final go-ahead' in The Age: 
 
The changing face of Melbourne; no building, iconic or otherwise, is safe or secure against the onslaught of "economic arguments". So called heritage values are no match for cold hard numbers representing developers' predictions of material gain or loss. As is so often the case, a government department named to give the impression that it manages issues in our interest [ie Heritage Victoria on behalf of the People of Victoria], in fact becomes little more than an agency that lends an air of process and respectability to the greed and self-interest of parties pursuing personal gain. 
 
And what of this term heritage? "Evidence of the past, such as historical sites, buildings, and the unspoilt natural environment, considered collectively as the inheritance of present-day society" [Dictionary.com]. One wonders what kind of cultural landscape we are building, or ravaging, for future generations of Victorians to inherit.

under development
120 additional rooms
and a 26-storey glass and steel tower;
will what survives really be The Windsor?