Are racetracks important places? Are historic tracks more important?

OK fellow IPers. I mentioned when I first joined up that I was writing my masters thesis on historic racetracks. (My degree will be in historic preservation- )
I'm arguing that they are important places, that the tracks carry as much of the heritage of NASCAR as the drivers and the stories we all know.
Also, that the best way possible to encourage the preservation of this heritage is to keep racing on the tracks that helped define that history.
So.
What do you think?
Are the tracks important? Are the historic tracks on our circuit important? Or are new tracks just as good?

Lastly- aside from it being tons and tons of fun to go- what really makes a track for you? Think of it in terms of a place or a community gathering place.


I'll be working on this all year. Umm, so I'll probably bump this. I hope people respond. I'm curious as to what you all think, or if you even think it matters.
I do.
My case studies are Martinsville, The Rock, Darlington, Occoneechee and North Wilkesboro.

email me if you want to really get into a discussion!
TheTrackGirl at Gmail.
M.

Re: Are racetracks important places? Are historic tracks more important?

Only to a degree.

Change is the normal condition and tracks become obsolete for lots of reasons.

Re: Re: Are racetracks important places? Are historic tracks more important?

Of course they are! Rockingham and North Wilkesboro (two tracks that are gone from the circuit), they had great racing! Tracks still on the circuit...Daytona, Darlington, Martinsville, Talladega (restrictor plates * * * * let them go as fast as they can), Atlanta (before it got reconfigured), Bristol and then you have Indianapolis (not so much Nascar) but that track has alot of history. They are all important places in their own right...but some just have more history than others. I miss racing the way it used to be...there ought to be a law about that! Wake up Nascar and let the boys race balls to wall like they used to do!