For those of us who deal with building design and construction every day, the answer is "NO, it is not easier to preserve than build new." It is always harder to alter than start from scratch no matter the discipline involved. It costs more to be careful of an item than to get it out of the way so the path to what we want to do is smoother. Even on a construction project that starts from scratch, it takes a constant watchful eye to make sure that following trades to not damge work already completed. Imagine how much closer trades have to be watched on a preservation project. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: [Fwd: Why do we preserve?] Author: "pam blythe" <[log in to unmask]> at internet Date: 7/23/98 8:07 AM I think as a society, over time we have come to expect that newer is better. Always have to have the fastest PC, the newest sports car, the shiniest penny. We've all heard that we are a disposable society, and I think it just comes naturally for us to flatten it out and start over. Nature also helps us do this - how many sand castles are flattened by the high tide and then rebuilt by another budding engineer hours later? - Pam ------------ Previous Message from Ken Follett <[log in to unmask]> on 07/18/98 05:18:56 AM ---------- 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? George Kramer, M.S. Historic Preservation Consultant Ashland, Oregon