any new construction within New York's historic districts, under siege from a variety of preservation groups, will inevitably be a compromise, and probably a far worse one that what would have originally been wrought.

Sharpshooter,

You got a point. What is the story something like if God had built the elephant by committee consensus then it would look more like an aardvark?

I don't think anything worthwhile comes from trying to satisfy everyone. I heard Al Gore on NPR interviewed last week talking about how now he is not running he can say what he thinks, and he said it. I was wondering why he never spoke what he thought for real before now, that is, without opinion polls to guide his words.

Then again, I think if there is not a pressure and acknowledgement on the part of the design professional to be sensitive to existing fabric we can quickly end up with all sorts of abominations. Bad design is bad design regardless of what anyone says or thinks about it. Mr. Stern from what I have heard him say seems inclined to preserve historic fabric by removing it or swallowing it up in new design.

As to Ada Louise Huxtable's quote I think it runs a bit to daft. We should worry about little nit picky things because if we don't then who will? Quality and compromise are subjective. It does not help that histo presto be perceived as a pedantic pursuit of the unsurvivable and trivial detail of a lost ancestry that nobody really wants to be bothered with.

Persistence of compromise leads to cheese that tastes like bland putty and beer that never rises above water. Which leads me to wonder, kicking a bit of dirt with my shoes here, is compromise of the built-environment possible without free-market capitalism?

][<en