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