We asked readers, “Would you be willing to pay more to renovate historic buildings, rather than build new?”

Here’s what you had to say:

“Yes! First, restoration/renovation typically costs less than demolition/new construction. Second, ‘historic’ implies that the building has already survived the ravages of time and, with proper renovation, is likely to continue to do so. The architecture is also usually timeless and often notable which is not usually the case for modern functionality. Third, restoration preserves the character of the neighborhood / community. Most examples of successful civic renaissance also embody a strong preservation ethic.” – Paul Pflanz, board member, Preservation Association of Central New York

“I do not like this question! It is way too simplistic, and going out to the public that way will get lots of people thinking in terms of simple spending of dollars rather than the value, tangible and intangible, that one gets out of the spending. I would prefer to hear a question posed by a member of the Preservation Association of Central New York relating to historic buildings and their value. Unfortunately, every situation when a decision is to be made regarding restoration or demolition is complicated and cannot be handled with simplistic thinking. It’s that kind of thinking that got Syracuse in the pickle it’s in: so much of its built history is gone and so much looks like any other city: a sea of asphalt and buildings that look like Microtels. That makes a city unattractive. People would rather live elsewhere.” – Lonnie Chu, Syracuse

“Yes! You cannot easily manufacture charm.” – Damien Vallelonga, Syracuse

“I’d be willing to pay more for almost anything, espcially services. This is what politicians don’t always understand. The minority that actually does write nasty letters, show up at meetings to complain or phone get all the attention. It’s why we call it home. In my opinion. And no I’m not rich or even well-off. I just know it’s not worth changing everything up and all the legal fees to save a couple bucks. Education is the key.” – Scott Binns, Camillus

“It would depend on the historic value. I feel I would want to renovate a historic capital building, train station, court house, etc.

As far as residential, I feel that the green building supplies and numerous energy saving options that are available to us now leave a person no choice but to build new.

So, if it means something to the community save it! Just my thought.” – Sean Haney, graphic designer, Eagle Newspapers

“Yes I would, for many reasons. My family owned an old Sea Captain’s house in Duxbury, Mass., where Mayflower voyagers John Alden and Miles Standish moved to after first settling in Plymouth. History is an integral part of the culture there, one wouldn’t consider thinking otherwise.

It’s actually green to retrofit a building, re-using many materials that are already in place. And it adds to civic pride. It’s more expensive, as it is takes more skill, so many contractors can’t handle it and push to start new.

If green building materials really evolve to the point of making a real difference, that would be a consideration. Also the historic value of the property needs to be determined. Garbage in, garbage out.”- Ellen Leahy, Skaneateles

Here is next week’s question: Have you noticed an increase in the price of your favorite hot beverage?

Have an opinion? Submit your feedback to [email protected] or on our Facebook wall .

“What you’re saying” is intended to spark dialoge and share perspectives among community members. Each week we will ask you for your opinion on a topic, and a selection of responses will be included in the following week’s edition of the paper.

To receive the weekly “What you’re saying” question in your inbox, e-mail [email protected]. The question will also be posted at facebook.com/theeaglecny.com . Please limit responses to two or three sentences and include your name. The Eagle’s letters policy applies.