Ron May says:
O-:This is not in the spirit of the National Historic Preservation
O-:Act. It is my opinion that we should not blanket the nation with a
senseless clichet to
O-:destroy all quonset huts simply because Congress ordered them destroyed.
O-:Just as we should study the context of prehistoric sites, we
O-:need to consider the context of quonset huts in different bases across
America.
O-:Some groupings of buildings merit preservation for historical
associations, events that
O-:happened within, for representative landscapes, and for people who lived
O-:there. We dont need to save all, but some would be in keeping. More, just
O-:like any other building with asbestos or lead paint, we should
O-:include haz mat and fireproofing abatement to render those buildings
safe.

Apples and oranges: You are talking quonset huts, by definition:
metal..arched roofs.  I was referring to the previous poster's reference to
ubiquitous wooden two story temporary rectangular fire boxes that have
killed many because they were used well past their intended life.  How many
do you need to save to preserve a record?  What is the historical value of
unnecessary unsafe duplicates of redundant structures from the 40's? The
destruction was ordered IMO, because of the safety record..and the need for
the space for more modern, more efficient and safer functional buildings.
You might have an argument if there were only three left..or only one at
each mobilization site..or even if one large site was left and unique.  When
I left service there were literally tens of thousands still ocupying prime
facility locations on functional bases...many square miles...all over the
US..easily accessible for any historical mapping and research..and nobody
cared.  I'm also sure that detailed mappings exist in military archives.
Saving them all seems a bit foolish on any grounds.  If you wish to campaign
to preserve one or a small group on each base, or one large cantonment area
somewhere..I'll enlist.  But the sheer size of some sites denies the
practicality of just moving the functional base site adjacent simply to
accommodate a ridiculous depth of redundant  preservation.  It is comparable
to suggesting that New York move south a hundred miles so that nobody will
change the paint in what might be left of potentially historical value.

Cu Stima;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania