An interesting analysis of the White House can be found at http://www.whitehousehistory.org/08/subs/08_b05.html They give Harry (and the people who were actually responsible for planning the renovation) a little more credit than you do. The alternative was to tear it down before it fell down, which makes it relevant to contemporary cases. Ron May <[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] > cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS) Sent by: Subject: Re: How Do You Feel About Gutting an Historic Building? HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask] > 06/21/2005 01:24 PM AST Please respond to HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY Vergil, The building permit is in the planning process, but the staff were only seeking comment from the Historic Resources Board, not the public stakeholders. I think someone in management challenged staff and sought to "dodge the bullet" by sending the case to the board for their opinion. This is pretty common in California land development, to seemingly override staff opinion by seeking a hearing board opinion. The only architect on the board agonized over the "facadectomy" but caved-in to pressure from the developers and their lawyers. I suspect the same team whined to department management that staff unfairly considered the gutting of the building a significant adverse effect and tried to have management say it was ok. As to President Truman, American probably was in a time of war when he ordered the White House gutted. He was a really difficult person and probably saw historical matters from a very narrow viewpoint. I do not consider this to be a relevant example for historic preservation anywhere else in America because of the special circumstances. Ron May Legacy 106, Inc.