Totally agree.

At 04:17 PM 5/21/2010, Rudy R Christian wrote:
>MCT suggests:
>
>>The natural way to answer this is to weigh the historic resource against
>what is likely to replace it.<
>
>Yes, but in doing so we have to carefully consider the "value" of each. The
>unfortunate truth is that we have drastically lowered or standards when it
>comes to "durability" (20 years if I am correct for new structures). If we
>look at a historic structure that was built when durability was looked at
>generationally simply for its architectural or esthetic value we immediately
>overlook what Deb has suggested needs to be considered a much higher value. 
>
>IMHO if we are to develop better conservation goggles we need to be able to
>tune them to recognize the very real value of durability as having a very
>high rating on the chart. 
>
>Rude E

Martin C. Tangora
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask]

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

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