In a message dated 3/27/2000 12:44:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<  If it's historic and
 > not endangered, better to leave it the F___ alone >>

Actually, the condition of the buildings was one of extreme deterioration.
Another member of the team was present at the preliminary walk through with
contractors and the unanimous "Contractor" decision was to knock them down.
Gee, maybe we should heve listened to them.

The intent was not to build new, but to retain as much as possible of what
was there. Ex: It was necessary to replace 200,000 of the original bricks. If
the new brick had been installed adjacent to the remaining original without
cleaning the originals which were heavily soiled, imagine the outcry.

Twybil