In Chicago preservationists are accustomed to being accused of
"trying to turn the city into a museum."
The same issue appears in the guise of
"This building isn't good enough to be landmarked."

The natural way to answer this is to weigh the historic resource
against what is likely to replace it.  Unfortunately
this raises the issue of taste, always a sticky one,
and especially for new developments.
It also raises the perennial issue of case-by-case versus planning.

Anyway, to answer your question, it is already permissible,
and has been for some time.  But my answer is, we don't.

At 08:59 AM 5/21/2010, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>At what point is it permissible to ask if we have too many state parks, historic sites, etc.?   
>More than "we" can (or care to) afford? 
>c

Martin C. Tangora
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask]

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

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>