"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Completely off topic: what is the obssession with the English to try to
save
buildings that would probably be better off being demolished?

That's not unique to the English. I'm sure Sweden has a very rational,
matter-of-fact approach, but here in the US we also save structures that are
of no use to anyone else, except as a historical interest.

I don't have any logical justification for that sort of thing, but I have to
admit, I think it's kind of fun to actually stand in the exact building (and
spot, even) that famous historical figures were in long ago. I don't get
much of that living in the Pacific Northwest anymore (the oldest buildings
around here are only 100 years old or so), but when I lived in the
Washington DC area, there was ample opportunity to visit sites that existed
at the time of the original colonies, or even shortly after Columbus first
"discovered" the continent.

If you're going to save stuff like that, it makes sense to save an entire
group or complex of buildings, since that gives you a lot more context with
which to experience the history.

Pete