In a message dated 98-10-19 23:44:22 EDT, you write:

<< Period of significance is an idea who's time has come and gone.  Few museum
 types advocate this as a blanket approach to preservation of significant
 buildings.  We lost too much good stuff when we did that.  And I try to avoid
 the whole issue of what made the building signicant...just make sure it is
 before I show up.  Then, let me work on preserving the knowledge of who built
 it and how and what they were thinking and what materials they were using. >>

John --

I doubt that you mean to say that everything about a significant building is
importnat and should be preserved, but this is exactly what is happening in
preservation, especially at the regulatory level.  It's all too easy to say
keep everything, it's all significant, and it works well on paper.  In the
real world, what happens when the whole budget can be blown saving a 1950's
addition that is in worse condition than the 1804 house and should never have
been built to begin with.  Decisions on significance are not made in a vacuum.
We need to make judgements,  whether we like it or not.  Those decisions
aren't always going to be right,  so of course it's better to preserve as much
as possible if we can.
Mary Dierickx, NYC