In a message dated 4/15/98 0:19:09 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> There are no
>  possibility to put together set of rules what should be done in each case
of
>  development in or near historical structure. Each situation is different,
>  the conservation is still an art and great challenge for everyone involved.
>  The same questions are present in case of fine art, building or the old
city
>  restoration. The scientific approach expires after all research and
analysis
>  are done and this is the time for decision and individual responsibility of
>  the architect.

Witold's comment hits squarely on the issues faced in a current project I am
working on -- a new (and large) addition to a 19th C. Italianate villa in a
semi-rural area. It is a program with great merit, but it is a substantial
design challenge. Initial reactions from the local preservation advocates:
"impossible."  Yet the building would be preserved (it is now suffering
substantial deterioration having been vacant for a number of years), used as a
focal point in the new program, and put to a worthy new use.  A creative
design for the project would allow the building to move on in history, albeit
with some compromise to site and historic fabric (accessibility a big issue).

One can always speculate as to what kind of project might be more sensitive to
the site.  The problem is that no one has come forward with ideas or money for
ANY project in many years, and the house has suffered.  Preservationists are
not in agreement on this issue here.  Any thoughts?

Mary Krugman