In a message dated 98-06-18 17:22:34 EDT, Dan wrote:

<< In the not so distant past, when people considered an addition or an
 alteration to a building, it was often prosecuted in a manner that was in
 keeping with the character of the structure.  >>

Although it may be true that in the not so distant past, both builders and
end-habiters were more tuned in to what makes a building work and how to do it
right, they had fewer options. Tradesmen were more prolific and Home Depot ads
weren't on the RCA Victor. 2x4's weren't something you bought at the lumber
yard (there was none),and the nails you would need to frame with them cost an
arm and a leg, if you could ever get the smithy to forge them. (I assume
blacksmiths then as now worked on a "round to it" basis.)

Unfortunately all of these paradigms shifted when the stars of mass production
and mass marketing aligned. Standards for construction as well as standards
for tradesmen began to lower as the availability of cheaper (litteraly)
materials and systems increased. The decision as to what doing it "right" was
worth, became reality and the the job of architect soon morphed into
specifier.

The results of this unfortunate reality are quite visible in my line of work.
Whenever I'm asked to survey a barn, I can tell from the road which section is
nineteenth and which is twentieth century. The section that is stil square and
sound, and is architecturally righteous, is the nineteenth. The part with the
sagging, too shallow roof, the poorly effected or absent flashing and the
shifting, buckling walls is not. Removing these "improvements" usually does
little more than expose the torture the old frame withstood at the hands of
the shoemaker and at best leaves the "ghost" of the tacky tack-on in the now
discontinuos patina.

Oh-oh. A little BP bobby just walked across my screen with a "no-whining"
sign. Gotta go.

Rudy Christian