In a message dated 98-07-15 19:04:07 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< When asked to round up speakers for a statewide preservation conference, a
 couple of years ago, I suggested having a panel on the re-do of Independence
 Mall in Philadelphia. I was told that the subject was too frought with
 controversy.  "All the better," I thought!  But folks rolled their eyes and
 said -- "Oh, no -- we don't want to touch that one.  It's much too hot!"

 Unfortunately, we never did explore the "controversy" at Independence Mall. A
 sacred few in the profession who are personally connected to the project
might
 know of the different (and apparently competing) viewpoints but the public --
 me included -- hasn't a clue what they were or the reasoning behind them. As
a
 result, our understanding of the work done there is superficial at best. We
 could use a few opportunities to have opposing viewpoints "duke it out" in an
 open forum. I think it would help our own understanding and appreciation of
 the various approaches in preservation. Maybe it would even bring the public
 along. >>

In the "olden days" when I went to high school we were given the impression
that the Founding Fathers, "in their wisdom," contributed various parts of the
Constitution of the United States, to unanimous murmurs of agreement, and then
took their wise and hoary heads to ye tavern to laugh it up with Ben Franklin.
But now, the high schoolers are trusted with what was then the college
version, so they come out with a better idea of the origins of political
wisdom.

(Which for some reason makes me think of all those Far East legislatures that
get onto CNN for literally duking-it-out over the issues.  Our guys did their
duelling on the side.)

So now, visitors to the historic hot-spot in Philadelphia are supposed to view
the restoration with uncritical reverence, are they?  Somebody wants them to
have a dull time.

Kathy Follett