Received: from listless.netcom.com [206.217.29.105] by in2.ibm.net id 900636135.84710-1 ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:42:15 +0000
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by majordomo.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.01)) id RAA10774; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:22:47 -0700
To: [log in to unmask]
From: George Kramer <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Why do we preserve?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Errors-To: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]

Just to be a little bit argumentative  (since I've asked and answered this
question any number of times myself) why is it that "preservation" is
always assumed to be the option that requires a reason?  How come we don't
ask "Why DON"T we preserve?"  (I know we often ask the uninitiated
developer-folks why don't YOU preserve, but I'm thinking big picture here....)

If one assumes that people tends toward inertia unless a good reason to do
otherwise is presented, and that water runs downhill and no one is going to
purposely go out of the way to make things harder on themselves, doesn't it
follow that "preservation" should be the easier path than demolition and
starting over from scratch?  Wouldn't it be easier to modify an existing
structure than to build a completely new one?  Shouldn't it be?  If it
isn't, why isn't it?

So how come WE are not the mainstream and the high-energy, bulldoze and
start over folks are....(and in Dan Becker's phrase of a few days ago,
nobody in the "general public" really gives a hoot anyway....)

My tongue is only partially in my cheek, mind you, but I do think there's a
lesson here and I'm curious if anyone else does.

George Kramer, M.S.
Historic Preservation Consultant
Ashland, Oregon