I echo Corn Dog, Kdave and LBR50 and I would add that the Delaware study also
shows how much better paying all the other jobs are compared to the restoration
work. If it takes only $1 million to pay for 14.6 jobs, but $1 million to pay
for 3.5 automotive jobs. I think I want to be an automotive worker! Now, this assumption is not really based on real information, but I would say
this article is based on just as dubious thinking as my statement above.
Preservation is typically a poor allocation of resources. Americans will not
continue to sustain our standard of living by simply preserving our buildings,
and conducting tourism tours!Unfortunately, "studies" mean
very little these days.
Excellent choice using the First Security/Wells Fargo City Center building as an
example of preservation. This building was originally slated to be
demolished, but the owner fought for reconsideration. The cost for
rehabilitation was deemed too high, but then a more detailed engineering
analysis proved that the building had a much better than expected response to
earthquake forces. Score one for preservation.When decisions are
being made about the economics of seismic rehabilitation, careful consideration
should be given to the "second opinion". Not only because of the value
added to our communities as outlined in this article, but also because we need
to consider the consequences of improving the seismic landscape for where we
live. I'll second LBR50's attention to unreinforced masonry
buildings and add that if we don't start thinking seriously about what we have
to loose, we'll find very little solace in quick decision-making.
I'm all for restoring old buildings. However, unless a building of unreinforced
masonry is brought up to current earthquake code, it's an irresponsible use of
monetary and human resources. Risking human life and prolonging the inevitable
fate of such a building cannot be considered efficient.
You could say the same for old people. They keep more doctors employed.
"Saving old buildings creates more jobs than new construction"That's obvious - it's less efficient than building something from
scratch. What the US needs is efficient, productive jobs, not
inefficient, make-work jobs. Old buildings may have some aesthetic
appeal but they were built to old, outmoded standards and are often full of
Thats great to see the old building stay. I look at when they tore down the
Kingdome it still had 50 years of life left in that and had ten years left till
it was payed off. That was a compleat waste of money and energy. So its glad to
see this trend happing were we save and use whats there.