Three of the points that I made touch on what I'll call my answer to that. First of all, since we've brought in the established standards and guidelines that are being used across the country now, I think that this has given a higher degree of confidence that we can revitalize historic places and find areas where managed change can happen to them, while protecting the character-defining elements and the historic value. What falls out of that is that it provides an economic basis by having new use. That is a very important first pillar of the answer, I think.
The second pillar of the answer revolves around environmental benefit, in that there are a lot of ways to rehabilitate historic places, so that you don't have to go in and clear-cut everything, so to speak, and put in expensive new systems. If you carefully knit in hybrid systems, you don't have to spend as much money on that. You have to know the building. You have to know ways to do it.
The third pillar has to do with community engagement. We don't tell a community what their heritage is. The community will tell us what their heritage is. If the community values the heritage place that they're looking to preserve, there are opportunities to find ways to use the historic place to serve contemporary needs, but preserve the historic value.