[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>