Many are not in favor of rehabbing older buildings. They believe that all old buildings are not salvageable. The fact is that many are, and yes many will have to go. Where the problem is located has to do with the way in which construction of row houses is cheapest lies in clear cutting the land of old buildings then constructing new. But the hidden cost is that of clearing the land of the old. If a developer does not pay for that then they see it as easy. This is why farm land is so desirable to suburban developers. If the developer has to clear the land of many trees then their costs jump up and the end cost his higher. In the end we are talking about flimsy stick build houses if all new. If only some houses are demoed, sturdy frame filler construction could be used and would make for reinforcing the extant buildings.

I would propose that each house, in a block be surveyed for its soundness. It is not rocket science. Then those which are not stable will be cut out and new frame constructed houses inserted, much the way a dentist does not pull all one's teeth to insert new ones. Salvaged brick could be used for the facade or for interior structural support. A brick facade, matching the original would keep the general appearance of the block and not looks like a cheap dentist job.

My real fear is that many solid houses will be lost and the desire for cheap replacement, along with off the shelf construction design will dictate the bad suburban designs will be used. This is seen all over the city, where each decade streets are clear-cut and new cheap suburban modular houses appear.

I also cannot help but wonder if developers who are chosen are favorites of inside movers and shakers. I remember housing commissioner Henson, who was in charge of the Sand town-Winchester money pit.