Hiedi expressed:

>>I do believe that the history of a building doesn't just lie within the
materials with which it was constructed, but within the design and purpose
for which it was constructed. While they aren't MORE important than the
materials, they aren't LESS either.<<

I agree both in principle and phylosophy. I also believe that there is "more
than the eye can see" for numerous reasons. The very fact that most historic
structures have a longer life span than those that seek to utilize,
remuddle, renovate or remove them indicates a changing perspective over
time. I agree that conservation of a structure requires it have a use, but
for true stewardship to occur, we need to attempt to see the big picture
from the structure's perspective.

I don't buy into the differrentiation of artifact and non-artifact as being
based on integration. The fact that historic fabric is an integral part of a
structure which requires maintenance doesn't require we accept modernization
in construction methodologies as justification for respecification of
structural or architectural details. In many cases the very fact that it is
constructed using "outdated" materials or methods explains it's longevity.
If form and utility are our only guidelines, techno-morphology will
eventualy erase the evidence of both early building materials and the master
craftsmen who worked them.

Sign me knittin' and pickin'

Rudy

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>