I think as a society, over time we have come to expect that newer is
better.  Always have to have the fastest PC, the newest sports car, the
shiniest penny.  We've all heard that we are a disposable society, and I
think it just comes naturally for us to flatten it out and start over.
Nature also helps us do this - how many sand castles are flattened by the
high tide and then rebuilt by another budding engineer hours later?

- Pam

------------ Previous Message from  Ken Follett <[log in to unmask]>  on
07/18/98 05:18:56 AM ----------
How come we don't ask "Why DON"T we preserve?"  (I know we often ask the
uninitiated developer-folks why don't YOU preserve, but I'm thinking big
picture here....)
If one assumes that people tends toward inertia unless a good reason to do
otherwise is presented, and that water runs downhill and no one is going to
purposely go out of the way to make things harder on themselves, doesn't it
follow that "preservation" should be the easier path than demolition and
starting over from scratch?  Wouldn't it be easier to modify an existing
structure than to build a completely new one?  Shouldn't it be?  If it
isn't, why isn't it?
George Kramer, M.S.
Historic Preservation Consultant
Ashland, Oregon