MetHistory wrote:
>
> In the same way our current restorers, although they think their work
> invisible, also profoundly change buildings.  The impulse to restore is
> strong, just as strong as the will to demolish - and not that different.
>
> Christopher Gray
>

..."Restoration" by definition does affect a building; it arrests the
processes of deterioration at work, and returns some elements of the
structure to their (presumed) original position.  It seems to me that
restorers (unless they're fooling themselves) must accept their influence
on a building, and it's only a question of how aggressive and how visible
that intervention is.  Witness DTrump's restoration of (I think it was )
the Gulf building on Columbus Circle, or the restoration of the New
Amsterdam Theater on 42nd.

I'd like to think that the urge to restore is a bit different than the
urge to demolish, but that's just me.

Kevin "of course, I might not be making any sense at all" Daly
Trading in my computer for an "all-natural" abacus