In a message dated 10/19/98 2:08:38 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< In-situ is always preferable to moving, moving is better than non-situ.  >>

In New York, a local preservation group has proposed moving an unusual wooden
house - but not to save the building.

The 92nd Street Y, at 92nd & Lexington, has purchased a vacant lot cattywompus
to its own 1920's 10-story building.  Their architects, Fox & Fowle, have
proposed an interesting contemporary design, faulty only in its program - a
NYC zoning giveaway allows "community facilities" to build higher and much,
much deeper on their lots, even in brownstone areas (where the rear garden
areas are shared resources).

Carnegie Hill Neighbors, the local preservation group, is fighting this new
building, but has not gotten far.  Now they propose freeing up a site adjacent
to the Y itself for add-on development.  To do this they propose moving the
(Landmark-designated) 1853 wooden house at 160 East 92nd Street (not
endangered in any way, but adjacent to the Y), and up the street to the vacant
lot.  (The Y says the idea stinks.)

Not my cup of java, but a novel twist on the building-moving thing.

Signed,   Christopher Gray              (Ken: "Not my cuppa java" is a copyrighted
expression.)