Abstracts from the 2006 AIC Annual Conference 2006 Annual Meeting Theme: Using Artifacts: Is Conservation Compromised? June 16-19, 2006, Providence, RI When is it Wrong to be Correct?
When is it Wrong to be Correct? For over thirty years I have been working on existing and aging buildings. In that time the issues raised in this call for papers has posed glaring and often bewildering dilemmas: retain or replace...if replace, then with what. The aspect of this very thorny issue I wish to address has to do with the retention and or replication of technically deficient assemblies and materials. I can demonstrate with rather compelling examples that the engineering of fluid dynamics was not understood by anyone designing roofs until well after 1900, resulting in inadequately drained buildings once we adopted gutters and downspouts. I can demonstrate that the shear capacity of most timber structures is dangerously inadequate for the loads they must carry, not by code, but in fact. If these and other deficiencies are inherent in the original designs, to what extent am I as a licensed professional engineer and registered architect obligated under standards of authenticity to replicate error and ignorance? To work out of this dilemma, I have constructed and model based on notions of significance which helps to intellectualize what my gut tells me is prudent and safe. It is this model which I propose to present in this paper. The model is based on standard notions of significance and authenticity. Conventional interpretations of significance and authenticity are crude in their application to complex objects, namely buildings. The building is not differentiated either functionally or geographically. All parts and functions are subject to the same global standards of significance and the same global standard of authenticity. This is an intellectual trap of our making, not associated with the reality of the structure. My revised model begins with differentiating between external and internal significance and authenticity. Current notions of these two concepts are coincident with what I am calling external, meaning that the arguments and the dilemmas resulting from applications of significance and authenticity ultimately derive from the external interpretation of the object. Internal significance and internal authenticity go to the relative value, historically and functionally, of the elements and materials as they relate to the structural and constructional integrity of the object. In other words, if the original function of the columns, for example, is maintained by the installation of reinforcement, is that not an authentic retention of function recognizing the significance of the purpose and location of the column. If the gutters are demonstrably undersized so as to threaten the facade, is it not authentic to replace the deficient item with a functional item in the interest of broader retention of fabric? These are questions which reasonable persons may debate, but much of the debate is about self-inflicted intellectual wounds. Let us take a broader view of value and significance lest we authentically destroy the artifact. Return to the abstract listing King's Chapel and Trinity Church in the City of Boston; Living Artifacts ar ti fact (noun) object made by human an object made by a human being, for example, a tool or ornament, especially one that has archaeological or cultural interest King’s Chapel and Trinity Church are both National Historic Landmarks in the City of Boston. Both host a steady stream of tourists. Trinity estimates that over a 100,000 visitors tour the building every year and King’s Chapel is a featured stop on the historic Freedom Trail developed by the National Park Service. Both buildings could be described as large artifacts and are clearly of cultural interest as historic places, but both are also the home of active modern church communities. The two communities have independently engaged Goody Clancy to develop Master Plans for future work. Contrasting the two buildings and the approach of the two church organizations towards restoration, stewardship and visitors creates an interesting conversation about how cultural heritage is both protected and celebrated on a daily basis. The technical and historic analysis of both buildings provides a platform for the comparison and will be of interest to the ASG group by itself. King’s Chapel, designed by Peter Harrison and completed in 1754 has been significantly modified on the interior. The paint analysis for the recently completed Historic Structures Report was undertaken by Brian Powell of Building Conservation Associates and indicates that the original painted decoration of the building might have been various and sophisticated, a far cry from the current Colonial Revival interior installed in the 19th century. BCA also found that the “matched” mortar of the 1970’s exterior re-pointing is much darker than the original and the trim paint has been steadily darkened over the years. Robert Mussey Associates, in examining the furniture questions the accuracy of certain church stories about origins of pieces and the original decoration of the pews. The church of the moment is not the church of 1754, but is a pretender that most visitors and the church community itself are very comfortable with. What does this mean for stewardship, for documentation and for historic story telling? Trinity Church, dedicated in 1877, is renowned as the collaborative creation of H. H. Richardson, the architect, and John La Farge, the artist for the interior decoration. In addition the building hosts a significant collection of stained glass art, two major organs and a chancel designed by the firm Maginnis and Walsh in 1938. Trinity has spent the last five years undertaking a major renovation and expansion that addressed the programmatic needs of the church and included conservation of the most significant area of work by John La Farge, the interior of the high tower. Only part of a large complex project, the conservation needs of the building were evaluated extensively including the analysis of 12 months of data from moisture and temperature monitors, petrographic analysis of stone, testing of wood pilings and extensive paint analysis by Philip Klausmeyer, Gianfranco Pocobene and John Canning. Decisions about the building were reviewed in a formal system with Preservation Guidelines drawn from the Secretary of the Interior, the Venice Charter and the AIC. The interior restoration work has been funded by the Getty Program and Save America’s Treasures and reviewed by a panel of experts that included Richard Wolbers and Ian Hodkinson. Trinity Church has embraced its responsibility for stewardship, but after the largest capital campaign of any Episcopal Parish and a multi-year project to add space underneath the building and update old and outdated systems, the bulk of the interior and exterior restoration still remains. What does this mean for the Master Plan currently being updated? What are achievable goals and guidelines for the continued restoration (but what of the 1938 and 1956 changes?), the protection and the daily use of a very busy artifact? Jean Carroon, Principal in Charge for both projects will compare the two buildings, the technical and aesthetic issues and the methodology of the churches in addressing issues and planning for the future. Return to the abstract listing
This paper describes the complex international aspects of the recent restoration of the National Theatre of Panama and the technical, political, and aesthetic compromises that occurred in order to restore the building to working condition. Located on the shores of the Pacific Ocean in the old quarter of Panama City, the National Theatre is an Italian opera house built between 1905-08. Italian architect Gennaro Nicola Ruggieri designed the building to emulate great Italian opera houses such as LaScala in Milan. Panamanian artist Roberto Lewis was commissioned to paint the murals. In June 2000 a large section of the theatre’s main ceiling mural collapsed during a ballet rehearsal. Fortunately, no one was killed. This prompted an evaluation of the structure and an urgent call for restoration and repair of the leaking roof. Emergency funds were donated from the German and American governments through the Panamanian Institute of Culture (INAC) and in 2002 just the ceiling was restored. The First Lady of the Panama took an interest in the theatre’s poor condition and received a three million dollar donation from the government of Taiwan, with additional donations from the government of Japan. Architects prepared a study of the building and a five million dollar construction budget. At the same time conservators were hired to restore the mural decoration. Work began in June 2002, and it was to conclude on Panama’s centennial on November 3, 2003. However, because of numerous bureaucratic problems the work was not completed until August 2004. The conservation staff educated the public about the project through the media, web site, publications and guided tours. The technical aspects of the work included conservation of the art, a new stage, seats, lighting, air conditioning, and new dressing rooms. Nearly every problem was taken care of except a new roof, the cause of the mural collapse in the first place. Roof leaks had prompted restorations in 1941 and 1971-74. After nearly 100 years, the theatre is again awaiting a new roof and Return to the abstract listing The Historic Congressional Cemetery and its uses as a Dog Park Congressional Cemetery was established by a group of citizens in 1807. It was ceded to the vestry of Christ Church, Washington Parish, and became known as Washington Parish Burial Ground. From the beginning the cemetery enjoyed a close association with the Capitol and its environs. The first interment was of William Swinton, who had been recruited by Benjamin Latrobe to work on the Capitol Building. On July 19, 1807, Sen. Uriah Tracy of Connecticut became the first legislator to be buried here. In 1816, the vestry set aside 100 burial sites for the interment of Members of Congress. Later the privilege was extended to their families. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the cemetery fell into disrepair due to lack of funds. In 1976 a group of citizens formed the Association for the Preservation of Historic Congressional Cemetery (APHCC), to save the cemetery. In an area of the city that has little green space, the cemetery became a haven for people who owned dogs. However, frequent use of the cemetery by both dogs and their owners has had an impact on the historic fabric of Congressional Cemetery. Dogs run through the cemetery knocking over rocking tombstones, chasing balls and urinating on the stones. On the other hand, in spite of its location in an area known for high crime rates, Congressional Cemetery has experienced little if any deliberate vandalism due to the constant vigilance of the dog walkers. The dog walkers pay a fee which assists in the conservation of the cemetery and also serve as volunteers. This paper will attempt to reconcile use versus potential damage to historical sites. Return to the abstract listing Testing and Evaluation of Acrylic Emulsion Adhesives for the Stabilization of the Great Hall Ceiling at Drayton Hall In 1980 Morgan Phillips published a seminal article on adhesives for the reattachment of loose plaster (APT Bulletin 12, no.2, 1980). His work revolutionized previous approaches to the stabilization and retention of failed historic plaster by developing innovative treatments based on acrylic emulsion adhesives. These formulations employed the same basic ingredients consisting of two acrylic emulsions (Rhoplex MC-76, the stronger component originally designed as a masonry bonding agent and Rhoplex 1950, the more flexible component originally designed as a binder for elastomeric sealants), water and a thickener (Acrysol ASE-60) to control viscosity and flow. By varying the ratio of the acrylic emulsions, Phillips was able to develop two different mixes with varying elasticity. In addition, filled and unfilled options for each of these two formulations were designed to provide for filling both small gaps less than 1/16” as well as larger detachment. Since 1980 Philips’ technique has found widespread application in many important buildings in the United States. Yet despite the popularity of its use among conservators, architects, and craftworkers, limited information exists on the mechanical properties of the formulations and their compatibility with various plaster-substrate systems. Phillips himself recommended additional testing of his formulations to establish more defined parameters for future treatment selection and monitoring. As part of the 2002-03 conservation program for the Great Hall ceiling at Drayton Hall, Phillips’ adhesive formulations were considered and tested for possible use. The preference for an injection adhesive system was based on its specificity of installation (i.e., localized, minimum treatment) and low-impact on the historic fabric. This was all the more critical as earlier restoration of the ceiling—following the practices of the day—limited access to the upper side of the lath and plaster, making retreatment difficult. “Smarter”, more selective intervention was therefore needed and possible following a comprehensive diagnostic analysis of the ceiling conditions using GIS in 2001 (presented at APT Toronto, published APT Bulletin 2003)). As part of the research design for conservation, a testing protocol was developed to define the mechanical properties of Philips’ formulations. Based on these results, injection of the ceiling proceeded. The presentation will review the various methods of plaster ceiling stabilization and especially Phillips’ adhesives for plaster reattachment, discuss their application to the Drayton Hall ceiling conditions, and present and analyze their physico-mechanical performance established through laboratory testing and field use. Return to the abstract listing Durability Study of Traditional and Modified Limewashes In December 2003 Cane River Creole National Historical Park (CARI) and Quality Finish held meetings to discuss the use of limewash on historic brick cabins located at Magnolia Plantation. CARI then expressed interest in protecting the historic wooden structures located at Oakland Plantation. The plantations are both located near Natchitoches, Louisiana. National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT) entered into a partnership with CARI and Quality Finish to conduct durability testing on limewashes to be used on brick and wooden structures within CARI. Three recipes were chosen to be tested, and made from three lime sources -- Graymont’s hydrated lime, Graymont’s “Ivory” lime putty, and Virginia Limeworks lime putty to create a total of nine washes. A tenth wash consisting of Virginia Limeworks lime putty and water was added to the brick testing. Quality Finish prepared the limewash samples consistent with techniques to be used in the field. The limewashes were applied to weathered wood, rough-sawn wood, handmade brick and modern brick after being primed with Edison Primer #342. In 2005 the three best limewash performers from the wood samples were studied on epoxy, similar to wood fillers used at Oakland Plantation to maintain the historic wooden material. NCPTT extended the study to include additional testing of several limewashes with no additives or primer. They included the Graymont limes from the original study along with an additional lime putty. This presentation will discuss the methodology to test the limewashes as well as the results from the traditional and modified limewashes. The pros and cons of traditional versus modified limewash will be compared. Discussion of future research initiatives will be presented. Return to the abstract listing An Examination of Repairs Made to Stone Prior to the Introduction of Modern Adhesives Stone details that have been lost, or have deteriorated past the point when they can be effectively treated, are often replaced with either pieces of matching stone carved to replicate the lost details or replicated in substitute materials. The replacement of sections of deteriorated stone with new stone, often called a “dutchman”, is an old technique that was sometimes employed during fabrication to compensate for a defect in the quarry block or damaged resulting from shipping or hoisting. Contemporary dutchmen repairs are usually secured in place with stainless steel pins set in an epoxy resin that is also spread between the mating surfaces. The introduction of the epoxy adhesive between the old and new stone can sometimes lead to the accelerated deterioration of the old stone. In addition, if the epoxy is exposed, it not only adds an element that detracts from the overall appearance of the stone artifact but it creates a bond line that is impossible to maintain and virtually impossible to reverse with out damaging the substrate. This paper will examine a number of ways in which stone was repaired prior to the introduction of polyester, epoxy, acrylic and latex adhesives and admixtures. The durability of these older types of repairs will be discussed as well as the ways that these repairs can be conserved. The viability of reviving these types of repairs will be addressed along the advantages and disadvantages of using stone to repair stone as opposed to using substitute materials.
Replicating the Original Terra Cotta Cornice of the Carson Pirie Scott Buildings with GFRC Panels - Challenges, Limitations and Success The Carson Pirie Scott Department Store designed by Louis Sullivan in 1899 is both a City of Chicago Landmark and a National Historic Landmark. The building originally included a projecting cornice and top floor colonnade constructed in terra cotta and adorned with Sullivan’s celebrated organic ornament. Probably due to long-term lack of maintenance and the resulting deterioration, the original cornice and colonnade was completely removed in 1948 and replaced with a flush terra cotta wall and parapet. This modification was a severe negative impact on the original design and historic integrity of the building. As part of a complete exterior restoration of Carson Pirie Scott, the original cornice and colonnade is being recreated and is scheduled for completion in December 2005. Several materials were considered for recreating the original cornice and colonnade including terra cotta, cast aluminum, sheet metal, glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP). The presentation of the cornice restoration will describe the analysis of the various materials considered and the decision process for choosing GFRC for this project. The presentation will also describe the design and fabrication process for the cornice and colonnade. Due to the complexity of the original organic ornament, and the minimal amount of original documentation and remaining evidence of the cornice, a unique approach for the design and fabrication of the ornament was taken. The presentation will describe how artifacts from several of Sullivan’s buildings from the same time period of Carson Pirie Scott, as well as the context of similar ornament throughout the building were used in combination with historic photographs to develop the ornament design for the new replacement elements. It will also show how a team of sculptors were brought in as part of the design team to help develop the design of the recreated ornament as well as produce the final ornament masters that were used as part of the contract documents.
|
