Mike Devonshire recalls the discussions when he worked on the Schermerhorn
Row writes:

<< The Ruskinian "Scrape/Anti-scrape discussion was one which went on ad
infinitum. >>

Mike, I agree with not calling down Jan Pokorny or anyone who worked on that
project - that guy has enough experience to make me look like a sixth-grader.
 That's why I'm trying to understand what seems to me to be, not a project
mistake, but a "different vision" of what is successful.  I have talked with
Jan P. about his vision of restoring the row to its sense of entirety, and I
understand (even endorse!) that goal in the abstract.  But (your remarks
about Paul Goldberger's deadline noted) others remark fairly regularly on a
sense not of what was gained in the work, but what was lost.  Francis
Morrone's guidebook notes that they are "shiny and perfect ... belong in
Disneyland"; I'm looking for other "impartial" observations which will help
me see the Row through different eyes - I want to see that different vision
for myself.

Of course, some of the negative criticism the Row received was spillover from
a vaguely negative take on the Rouse development.  Some is the "hurt puppy"
effect - a decaying building attracts sympathy.  But even those things do
not, I think, explain the "It's over-restored!" reaction.

Can you either comment on the error of that reaction, or clue me in better on
how someone sees the Row so radically differently as I?  For myself, upon
reflection, I think I see the finished work as dichotomous - the Row is quite
obviously antique, but the goal of the work was to restore it to "new"
condition, with the same impact it had in 1811.  I think the finished work
falls far short of that impact, and is in fact dissonant with the observable
age (and differing paths since construction) of the buildings.

Christopher Gray