On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Met History wrote:

> "There is a critical responsibility to keep an eye unwaveringly on the
> values and quality that cannot survive compromise and to turn the
> spotlight on those involved in compromising them...."
>
> I had an immediate reaction:  any new construction within New York's
> historic districts, under siege from a variety of preservation groups,
> will inevitably be a compromise, and probably a far worse one that what
> would have originally been wrought.
>
> Agree, or disagree?   Christopher         (PS Peter finally caught a tuna.)

Agree in part: new construction in a historic district always involves
compromises.  Disagree in part: I think the developer's original
intention would usually be worse than the compromise that eventually
resulted.  I don't subscribe to the Howard Roark concept of architecture.
Buildings, especially in an urban context, have to meet the needs of
multiple constituencies.

In any case, there are two different shades of the word "compromise" being
used here.  ALH means "compromised" in the sense of "tainted or ruined",
as in "a woman whose reputation is compromised" or "a compromised security
system."  You mean "compromise" in the sense of "a deal between factions
where each gets part of what they want."

                                Larry

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
Washtenaw County Commissioner, 4th District
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
Polygon, the Dancing Bear, http://potifos.com/polygon
Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106

--
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>