I did make it clear to him that the sidewalk project is a fiction.
>
>][<en


Ken - you did not suprise me, it could be a fiction regarding sidewalk with
blac splotches (by the way I start to notice the apperance of NYC sidewalks
and even tried to count splotches per square - seems to me like the gum is
the favorite in the city). Main problem is how to do partial reconstruction
or extension  to the landmark - I remember back in the seventees discussion
in my office regarding the English way of restoration using original brick
from the demolished barn to restore object from the same period. I can only
imagine the horror of the future researchers trying to put together the
story of the building development using traditional methods like brick and
mortar analysis. Seems to me like working on the historic objects and
recognizing the value of the time passed we tend to forget that we are going
to be a history too and there is no need to be more historical than
necessary. In ten years the object dated let say 1900 will be more valuable
than 1998 but in 2100 it will change and next 400 years both of them will
have the same historical value. In my opinion reconstruction is (even if
necessary) bad enough but pretending like put the black splotches on new
sidewalk to have it look like the old one is unacceptable. On one of the
projects visited by me recently contractor considered using the new brick
with artifcally applied "wear and tear" look as possible solution to the old
brick replacement. Again in next couple of years new brick of the same size,
finish and color as original one will get the natural aging look and
Disneyland is the last thing we need in restoration.

Witold