BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Grace Crane <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BP - His DNA is this long.
Date:
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:39:00 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1985 bytes)

     For those of us who deal with building design and construction every
     day, the answer is "NO, it is not easier to preserve than build new."
     It is always harder to alter than start from scratch no matter the
     discipline involved. It costs more to be careful of an item than to
     get it out of the way so the path to what we want to do is smoother.
     Even on a construction project that starts from scratch, it takes a
     constant watchful eye to make sure that following trades to not damge
     work already completed. Imagine how much closer trades have to be
     watched on a preservation project.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Why do we preserve?]
Author:  "pam blythe" <[log in to unmask]> at internet
Date:    7/23/98 8:07 AM


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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2