Is "New and Improved" really worth it?

We as American, have a certain passion for new items. Whether it's a puppy, new house or car. It has to be something never owned by anyone else, ever. At Christmas time, auto dealerships make a point of showing cars with monstrous red bows adorning the top of the shiny paint job (where do you purchase those great big bows?). Who would have ever thought of hearing someone brag they bought their true love something old as a gift. I don't mean an antique because in most cases that means refurbished or restored. "I bought my wife a 1953 Commander Starliner; in a couple of months we'll have restored it and it will be as (and here is the kicker) good as new." I have personally seen people buy an old house, knock it down because it something they didn't like and put up a new structure. The new house may or may not have been superior to the old. But it was brand new.

Some people exclaim that they only buy new because they don't want to assume other peoples' problems. New means fresh, insullied but it also means untried, and unproven. So why is there this obsession? Why is the city Building Department and the Historical & Preservation Society at logerheads? Can we have both new and old coexisting at the same time? Some recommend keeping the old exterior while gutting the inside and bringing it up to modern standards; a compromise which really doesn't maintain the character of the inside of the building. Others say even the renovation paint must be of a type that mimics the old style. New is "bad" and old is "good."

Somewhere there is a middle ground that is exceptable to all. An area were all can come to an accord and can agree as to what can be done to keep our historical structures for future generations to see.

K.