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

--
**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>