According to Murtagh, the word preservation has had multiple and evolving definitions over the years. The most current definition of preservation that Murtagh gives is the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and vegetative cover of a site. This may include initial stabilization work where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials. This definition varies from the perspectives of architects, historians, conservators, planners, lawyers, archaeologists, craftsmen, realtors, and computer analysts. A much broader explanation for the word preservation can be to display and act upon concern for the rate of consumption of buildings, and to develop good maintenance programs as required. The fact that there have been so many definitions for the word preservation in the past has led to confusion and dissonance in the care of historic buildings, land, and artifacts.

Murtagh also shares multiple reasons for why it is important to properly define the term preservation across professional fields. Some of these reasons are to provide guidance in the correct preservation of a thing, to stimulate interest in preservation, to explain what it is to interested parties and to provide useful and relevant text on these matters, to foster high professional standards in the field, and to provide precision of expression for communication on matters of preservation. These are all reasons why Murtagh may have written the text on preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.

The author's perspective on the matter thus far seems to be clearly noted by a number of quotes and references in the text. “When in doubt, subscribe to John Ruskin's let-it-alone school of thinking,” is one. Another quote used by the author to express opinion is “restoration is generally speaking a modern euphemism for wholesale destruction and the worst desecration,” spoken by William Morris in 1879. Finally, the author quotes A.N. Didron, a French archaeologist, “it is better to preserve than to restore and better to restore than to reconstruct.” These passages lead the reader to believe that the author wholly affirms to preservation first, then restoration, then reconstruction. The Ruskin ideal shared first expresses the reader's belief that Murtagh would choose the purest preservation methods available in favor of any other option.

In the JS Online articles written by Tom Daykin, the topic of preservation is addressed in relation to a group of historic buildings, 19th century, on both Milwaukee Street and Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Developers proposed a Marriott hotel building that would essentially do away with any and all of the original construction of the historic buildings. Daykin, in sequence of his articles, seemed to the reader to change perspective on the matter whenever new information was presented, though in the beginning Daykin appeared to be more in favor of the proposed plans, near the end of the process seeming to tire of the arguments. Daykin seemed appeased at most in his final article, where the developers had changed the plans to compromise effectively with the Historic Council in Milwaukee.

An editorial read on JS Online stated a more up front opinion by using the phrase, “not every building deserves to be saved.” This piece cited that the facades of the multiple buildings were too damaged to be preserved, which was the condition by which Alderman Robert Bauman, alderman of the district of the buildings in question, and a member of the historic council, would agree to vote in favor of the project. Those in favor of the project offered the benefits it would bring into the city of Milwaukee, such as 450 construction jobs, 200 full time jobs, over $2 million in the city's annual tax revenues, and a foreign residency project that would provide foreigners with visas, as well as ten U.S. Jobs to every single foreign employee. Those in favor also shared the fact that the project was funded by foreign investors and would only bring money into the city.

According to Daykin, Alderman Bauman, initially heavily opposed to the project, requested that the developers choose a new location. Eventually Bauman compromised under the stipulation that the developers preserve the facades of the historic buildings. The Marcus Corporation, hotel owners in the area as well, while not publicly lobbying against the project, did state that the new hotel would only make a small piece of pie even smaller to local hotel and business owners. This led those in favor of the project to demand more money to be budgeted to VisitMilwaukee, a group that provides money for the tourism and amenities of the city. Eventually, a compromise was reached that appeased both sides of the argument: 30,000 square feet of the existing buildings on Wisconsin Avenue are to be preserved, though, due to excessive water damage and deterioration, the Milwaukee Street buildings will be demolished.

Through the reading of these articles, I feel that a compromise was indeed reached, though it is my belief that the legal team for the developers may have anticipated what sort of opposition they might meet from the historic council, and played their hands accordingly. I believe that they presented the plans as all economic benefits to the city, leaving out the information that Milwaukee does not currently have enough business travelers or corporate headquarters to financially support the addition of such a hotel, without spending city money to boost tourism and corporate presence. Note: After visiting the site, I have changed my opinion and now feel that the two facades on Wisconsin Avenue should be torn down. The Johnson Bank facade has been well preserved, and should remain. I still foresee a shortage of business needed for the building of the hotel to be fiscally beneficial to the city.