Original sentence: Architectural tastes in the early 20th century did not recognise the merits of (then relatively recently outmoded) Edwardian and Victorian buildings, seeing them simply as old and outmoded in much the same way as contemporary tastes often view mid 20th century architecture.Feelings about the Bruce Report still run high today: Some argue the primary motivation was saving money for the Scotland Office and the British government, though it is hard to reconcile this with such a sweeping and expensive plan: If cost savings were genuinely the goal, expensive demolition and regeneration schemes seem unlikely, the city would more likely have simply been left to rot.From a contemporary perspective many find it hard to imagine advocating the wholesale demolition of so much of the city.Imagining a Glasgow either without the Bruce Report, or having followed it to the letter, conjures two images very different from both each other and the vibrant modern city Glasgow is today.Most of these had mixed success and failure, partly because of flawed inception and partly through incomplete execution.Or how so many buildings we now recognise as significant and beautiful could have been earmarked for destruction.Seen within the context of its time it seems likely that the report was genuinely motivated by a desire to improve the city.The post-war drive toward a modern, clean and socially responsible Britain resulted in many sweeping schemes such as the Bruce Report.Those parts of the plan which were implemented can be argued to have contributed in equal measure to the strengths and the short comings of Glasgow today.With hind sight, many of the suggestions in the Bruce report might seem draconian or even idiotic