The city's Historic District Commission successfully has deployed a change in regulations that allows it to delay building demolition up to 180 days, to stop plans to tear down two buildings on Bank Street.

The 180-day cooling-off period is an appropriate way to consider a situation like this in its entirety, the effect on neighboring historic properties, before bulldozers make deliberations beside the point.

Indeed, city preservationists, using this waiting window of time before demolition can proceed, have been waging a campaign to save the historic buildings at 116 and 130 Bank St. They have collected more than 1,200 signatures on a petition, including one from Mayor Michael Passero. They plan to ask the City Council to pass a resolution in support.

The state Historic Preservation Council plans to take up consideration of the proposed demolitions at its July 5 meeting. City preservationists hope the council will ask the attorney general to go to court to protect the two buildings, which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as he has before in similar situations.

That has the makings of a successful outcome, protecting an important piece of the downtown historic district, preserving the streetscape of what remains of the old port city architecture.

But I would urge preservations to also lobby for the creation of a more powerful historic district for downtown, to use this pivotal moment, as the community coalesces around the campaign to save these two Bank Street buildings, to strengthen the way the city can protect its historic character.

The timing is important, too, with the pace of property transactions picking up downtown and more developers making plans. Until now, there has been downtown preservation by inertia, but that will change with a building boom.

Let's be honest, it's the architecture of the downtown, the collection of remarkable buildings in their entirety, that makes the city so appealing. The downtown evokes the spirit of the roaring port city it once was and you can see it on the faces of people who visit for the first time. Without that remarkable presentation of architecture, it could be just another washed-out small town USA, sucked dry by suburban sprawl.

Historic districts with authority — a local example is the Groton side of Mystic — can regulate all exterior building renovations, assuring that new doors and windows, additions and façade changes are all done in an appropriate way that ensures they don't detract from the historical character of the neighborhood as a whole.

Naturally, some building owners would resist the regulation and intrusion into this decision making.

On the other hand, some will welcome the introduction of rules that would, in the end, make the neighborhood more attractive and appealing, and, most important, more valuable.

Some of the most expensive small city real estate in New England, from Newport, R.I., to Nantucket, Mass., is in historic districts with strict rules. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City are landmarked and protected by strict historic preservation regulations on renovations and new building.

When I asked the mayor if he would support a more powerful historic district in New London, he said he would welcome a debate on the question.

You can't ask for more than that.

Once 116 and 130 Bank St. are saved, I think preservationists ought to take the mayor up on his offer to open the conversation on stronger historical preservation protections.

The city should be better able to tend and protect one of its best assets.

Make the downtown even more appealing, and valuable, for historic-minded investors, without spending a dime.

This is the opinion of David Collins.