In most cases, it’s better to restore than to rebuild. That’s what New England building restoration experts will tell you when you ask them what the best option for your building might be. Rebuilding takes longer, and it will lead to the loss of many of the qualities and much of the historic value that the building held in the past.

If you’re looking for context and better insight on what the actual evidence supporting restoration would be, the following points should be considered very carefully:

1. Right off the bat, rebuilding is far more costly than building restoration. When it comes to restoring a building, the materials and labor involved, as well as the time required will be far less, and the work can be done much more easily.
2. Restoration allows you to keep the building’s history intact. If you simply need a building that has the right functional characteristics, this isn’t going to be an advantage. However, in terms of property value and the context of preserving historic buildings, it can be an invaluable benefit to be able to restore rather than rebuild.
3. Building restoration allows for continuity. If you’re in a place where people value their historic landmarks, then tearing down an old building isn’t going to work to your advantage. However, restoration might be a good option.