In a message dated 98-10-20 00:14:04 EDT, you write:

> I know I'm going to get lambasted for this....well, better from this crowd
>  than another...but lately I've had this strange doubt about that.  When we
>  accept and move rather than allow to be destroyed, we are expending
> resources.
>  Shouldn't we be spending those resources on an equally significant building
>  that will not be moved?  Is there a time when the only dignified thing to
do
>  with a building is to allow it to become archeology.

I think it probably (like everything) depends on the building or resource. I
mean.. for 18th and early 19th century frame houses, there is a precedent for
them being shifted about, so I think our moving them today isn't completely
out of context... and there were also those English castles moved to America
and reassembled stone by stone, which are now architectural oddities/marvels
(choose your adjective.)

Personally I think moving a building says more about the present than about
the past. I think preservation by moving will be a lot more interesting 100
years from now than it is now, and those actions will speak more about *our*
time and *our* intentions than anything else.

I work in a 'moved building' and trying to interpret its history is a real
tangle; however, many people are genuinely fascinated by the history of moving
the building, consider it a landmark event in the community, and value the
building more highly for its hardship. I figure its the "Ripley's Believe It
or Not" factor.

-Heidi