On 11/29/04 8:36 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Meanwhile I'll try to find you the mealymouthed histo presto argument.

I already forwarded it; save your energy for more useful things like humor
czaring.

> One
> problem with the energy conservation argument is that uses requiring fairly
> high tech services (like medical facilities) are not as good "fits" for old
> buildings as are uses that don't require all that STUFF, and stuff which
> periodically has to be repalced.

Hence standard number 1 in the Secretary of the Interiors Stnds. for
Rehabilitation about finding compatible uses. But that's not a problem with
the energy conservation argument. That's a problem with compatible use.

Dan

--
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>