[log in to unmask] wrote:
> http://curbed.com/archives/2007/02/12/hole_situation_update_pieced_at_last.ph 
> <http://curbed.com/archives/2007/02/12/hole_situation_update_pieced_at_last.php>
Not fully connected in here on this scenario but will add brief comments 
on the photo.

Looks like concrete w/out the golden rule, stone faced molds. Less 
expensive than stone. Contemporary construction methodology... meaning 
there are more crews able to do this -- particularly in the urban 
environment -- than traditional stonework. Also, a concrete wall is 
easier to engineer as-in predict performance than a traditional stone 
wall. Stone wall requires more smarts to engineer than concrete, thus 
more costly design. And, since the original stone failed, why not do it 
BETTER? It may look like crap but the ppl in the buildings I get the 
impression look out over it and likely do not see it.

][<

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