>>213095429The problem with this is while it is accurate in its individual parts, it's as a whole inaccurate. Like you'd never have the dopey roadside attraction in the middle of a city, that's reserved for towns with no economy. And nobody calls something built in 1965 "historic", something from 1910's or even the 1700's would be more appropriate.
There's a parody to be made, but this ain't it.