What is being kicked around here is the ongoing arguments of what constitutes "preservation" vs. "restoration". This has plagued the historical railroad community for years. There are those who say that a piece of equipment should be "preserved" in the state in which it was received. While others will say it is OK to "restore" a piece of equipment to operational status as long as the original appearance is retained. Of course there are areas of overlap which create occasional heat and light.
In this rhetorical context, does the fine work the FRIENDS have been doing constitute "restoration" or "preservation"? And how about the occasional car (I'm thinking caboose here) which has essentially been entirely changed from its original context? Does it fit into either of these categories?
Now as to the proposed visitors center/museum, a whole different set of arguments arise. Clearly, this would be new construction and not either "restoration" or "preservation". What are the guidelines on this? Have clear policies and guidelines been established either within the FRIENDS and/or the Commission and the two States?
That's why I got a bit testy when I learned of the proposal to place the visitors center/museum down by the log bunkhouse. That clearly crosses the line between "preserving" what history is left there, and adding new construction. I hope that we will find out that the two states and the Feds have established guidelines in this area before anyone rushes to judgement. We may find out that the decision has already been made in one or more regs. I don't have an answer here. Perhaps the FRIENDS can weigh in here. I'm sure they have thought about it.
Now, before anyone climbs my frame, I'll admit that I did suggest that a visitors center/museum should be built on the slope up from the restrooms. My rationale here is that there are many examples in NPS controlled sites where such a thing has been done. Yeah, I'll admit that these buildings do violate the integrity of the site, but in my mind the end justifies the means. Historic interpretation does play an important part in many of many of the NPS facilities. But if tastefully done, with full consideration of the historic value of the site, then it can be justified.
Now one can ask why not use this same rationale at the bunkhouse site? I'm sorry, until I am convinced that no other alternatives exist, I won't even consider it as an option. But now one can ask doesn't the location down near the station violate the historical integrity of the C&TS property? Yes is does. But consider this in light of the changes which have taken place in this area over the years. At least the visitors center/museum would be in an area which has already been historically compromised, and does not establish a new precedent as the bunk house location would.
Fire away. I have a thick skin as well has a thick head.
CJ
