In Philadelphia, Ron, architects and contractors would call that
a "rehab."  Except that they probably wouldn't bother to save the
facade, unless it were noteworthy in some respect.  Roofs and interior
walls are sometimes beyond repair, the interior spaces often do not
suit clients' needs, the paint is peeling and the plaster coming off of
the walls, etc.  After the reconstruction, the value of the property,
and the taxes the owner pays will go up, which benefits the public, and
the streetscape is preserved.  At least until someone buys the houses
next door and tears them down to make room for a Mickey D's (with lots
of open space in the parking lot).

As for S of I standards, is it a 106 project?  If not, how is that
relevant?

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron May <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:07 am
Subject: How Do You Feel About Gutting an Historic Building?

> Fellow HISTARCHers,
>
> This evening I attended a meeting at which an architect and his
> developerteam proposed the preservation of the exterior facade of
> a building, then gutting
> the interior, roof, interior walls, ripping the earth below, and
> creating a
> modern building beneath the old skin of the building. How do you
> feel about
> gutting an historic building? Is this consistent with the
> Secretary of the
> Interior's Standards?
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.
>