Looking through canditates for Britains Best Historical site, I've noticed that some of our greatest assets have been wonderfully restored from a ruined state. The SS Great Britain is perhaps the best example of that. When you visit such a site, I think it is a greater, more inspiring experience for having been restored. The rusting hulk of the SS Great Britain wouldn't be much of an attraction, would it ?

So why can't more of our ruined heritage be restored ? I'm not persuaded that it is entirely due to money, or rather the lack of it. It seems to be a cultural thing. We seem to take the view that if something is ruined we should reverentially preserve the ruins for future generations rather than make any serious effort at reconstructing them.

If we restore anything, more often than not it tends to be mechanical rather than structural. Why is that ?

If I can use just one very well known site as an example, acknowledging that it is a controversial example, which would you rather visit; Stonehenge where all of the stones were re-erected and you could experience the site as it was originally intended, or what we currently have there as a Tourist attraction ?

There are thousands of other ruined sites from which you can substitute your favourite into the same basic question. Do you favour conservation or restoration ?