You cannot base the costs on a word and no one is well served by doing
so.  Preservation can be the least expensive approach, because it
creates nothing new, but rather performs maintenance on what is.
Restoration can be more expensive, because so often it is a "make-over"
with varying amounts of substance and flash.  Doing it right has no
relationship to cost at all.  Doing it right can be the five-dollar
phone call and a $10.00 repair, when doing it wrong is a 50k, remodel.

One should never allow the 100K budget blind one to the 100 dollar
solution.

But then, I'm not as hardened as I will be.

-jc




On Jul 24, 2004, at 5:18 AM, Robert J. Cagnetta wrote:

> So what people have conveyed to me is based on a scale.  If a
> Restoration is
> $1,000.00, then a Preservation must be $2,000.00, and a Conservation
> has to
> be $5,000.00, while a remodel is about a $1.00.  Even though we try to
> use
> the "right" term in the right situation, people are more comfortable
> certain
> words.  We get a lot of, "Historic Preservation?  Sounds Expensive."
> And I
> say "Yes, it does cost more to do it right".
>
> RC in RI
>
> --
> 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>
>

--
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>