In a controversial development project in downtown Cleveland, where a 1960s-era office building is slated to be replaced with what is claimed to be the greenest building in Northeast Ohio, there's a new twist on the arguments of preservationists that want to preserve the older building.
What's the argument, you ask? More energy is consumed in tearing down an old structure, in the manufacturing and shipping process of building materials, and construction for a new green/LEED/whatever structure than what would be saved by the new structure over its lifespan.
Any truth to it? Should old buildings be preserved solely because it's "greener" to let them be?