Some years ago while surveying a county town, I debated with some locals whether the nearby children's home/orphanage, which had been recently in the news for the sadly usual story of abuse, should be demolished, protected, sold, redeveloped, etc. Some felt that it was a blot on the landscape and wanted to see it removed, while others thought it served a useful purpose in reminding them of the depths to which humanity had sunk. Those who wanted it gone were also those who were slowest to acknowledge originally that such a thing could have happened in their town. (I'm not accusing you of same, TP.)
When I was in Berlin a year ago, I felt that the remaining stretch of the wall gave added impact to a knowledge I already had, i.e. I was aware of the wall, the reasons for its existence, the horror stories of those who tried to cross etc., but seeing the actual
wall made it all more immediate.
An interpretive centre mediates the experience of a place, often in ways that remove our experiences to a safe distance. I think there is value in retaining at least some vestiges of the original structure. (I'd quote Joni Mitchell here, but that's Devin's job.
I don't understand what the date of my chosen quote has to do with its validity.
Why do you disagree with the comparison with the Berlin Wall?