Met History wrote:

> In a message dated 5/6/04 7:27:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>> but not such
>> a large market that the quarry can afford to pump the CT river out of
>> the hole so that they can go back down to reach the old stone.
>
>
>
> Got it, agreed, and I don't mind that the steps are made of out brown
> colored cement (although I do object when slightly deteriorated
> rowhouses are covered with opaque slurry and it is called
> "rebrownstoning".)
>
> In the matter of the New Victory steps on 42nd Street my only
> objection is that we compliment as "restoration" what is, really,
> battlefield triage.   Just because it's the best we can do doesn't
> mean it's any good.   (Pyrate, I have checked with wife on this.)
>
> Christopher

Certainly true that it is not restoration, not even conservation or
preservation... it is I suppose a recreation to replace something missing.

If there are arguments in favor of putting back a missing set of steps
with a faux material as having something to do with historic
restoration, then I suppose an attempt to revive, replicate, educate
using traditional trades practice as well as traditional materials to
reconstruct a 17th century log & timber synagogue, an annihilated
structure in Poland makes some sense too.

][<en

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>