Is Greener Always Better? Problematic Use of Modern Materials in Traditional Building Systems

When new words and terminology enter our vernacular, they often take on a connotation larger and broader than they deserve.  Today, “green” and “sustainable” are synonymous with responsible living and construction, their meanings understood as clearly by an architect or engineer as they are by the lay person.  They are buzz words that make consumers feel good about their purchases; they’re doing their part to protect the environment and help save the world.  But, in certain applications, use of these terms is more than a misnomer; it’s outright false advertising.

Technological advances in building science have allowed for the creation of the most energy efficient systems and materials that the construction industry has ever seen.  With the ever rising cost of every fuel type, energy conservation is always a high priority when planning for and designing buildings.  Buildings, historically, are only as efficient as the technology of the day allowed.  While we may shudder with the chill of a stiff breeze standing by the window in an 1885 Queen Anne Victorian, imagine the relative level of comfort that one of the Pilgrims would have enjoyed in the same situation!

Today’s building designers want to create watertight, airtight structures that use minimal amounts of energy with windows sealed tight and year-round climate control for maximum comfort.  They strive to design an envelope that needs low or no maintenance, fully accepting that building owners will not care for their buildings as a given.  As far as new construction goes, there’s no problem.  In fact, this is good news.  But what happens when the owners of older buildings want to implement these new technologies to increase the efficiency of their buildings?

Older building stock tends to be far less efficient than modern buildings.  Wall systems and joinery, windows and doors—they’re just not as tight.  An unexpected benefit of these inefficiencies is the passive ventilation that occurs, be it laterally through windows, doors and walls, or by the “stack effect” in which warm air rises, bringing vapor with it, escaping through the uninsulated roof system.  Know this: older buildings breath.  Modern building systems are designed so that structures don’t breath and vapor is removed with dehumidifiers or other mechanical forms of ventilation.

In older buildings, solid masonry walls rely on the temperature gradient between interior conditioned spaces and the outside for walls to drain properly.  Insulating these walls stops or mitigates the passage heat through the solid brick masonry.  This slows the drainage/drying process and traps moisture vapor in the wall which, during freeze-thaw cycles, freezes and expands up to 12% in volume.  Oftentimes the result is damage to the wall system of the envelope.  Instead, the focus should be on controlling moisture and preventing it from entering the wall system, both inside and out.

Today, older buildings have kitchens, bathrooms and laundry spaces that they didn’t when first built.  This introduces a significant amount of moisture vapor that may enter the wall system from the interior.  Installation of a vapor barrier will prevent this from occurring without impacting the thermal effect that heated interior spaces have on the exterior walls.  Outside, mortar joints must be kept tight and full.  Penetrations such as window and door jambs must be sealed tight where they abut masonry to prevent water intrusion. 

Roof drainage systems must be functional; gutters protect and shed the walls from runoff and properly placed leaders direct the rainwater away from the building at grade.  It’s also interesting to note that many older masonry buildings have large windows resulting in a high window opening-to-wall surface area ratio.  Improving the efficiency of the fenestration through conservation and repair, as well as the addition of efficient interior or exterior storm windows, will help preserve the historic integrity of the building while also saving on energy costs.

Recently a client contacted me with questions and concerns about insulating his masonry walls.  He was engaged in gutting much of the interior space in his circa 1870 brick townhouse in a National Register historic district in Boston’s South End.  The building department was demanding that he insulate behind the walls in compliance with the International Energy Conservation Code.  When we pointed out that the code specifically exempts buildings on or eligible for inclusion on state or national historic registers, he said it didn’t matter if there was a lot of interior gutting; that was his interpretation of the code.  Only later, when a staff member from the Boston Landmarks Commission intervened, was he straightened out.

Before you breath a sigh of relief, owners may have to prove that their historic projects are worthy of exemptions from the International Energy Conservation Code following changes to the forthcoming 2015 version approved by the International Code Council last year.  The changes were proposed by representatives from the New Buildings Institute, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Market Transformation and they remove the exemption language from the code. The group added a requirement that permit applicants file a report with a code official when seeking immunity on specific areas of their project.

Do they sound like groups that know about old buildings?  No, they don’t.  They sound like groups that think LEED certification matters when it comes to old buildings; you know, organizations that don’t think full life cycle analysis matters in “green” building practices.  Why wouldn’t the team include representatives from the Association for Preservation Technology or the Preservation Trades Network?  And, frighteningly, who will train the code official that decides whether a project receives an exemption or not?  The answer is NOBODY.  So guess what happens when you encounter our friend in Boston?

More and more I’m coming to believe that these people actually hate old buildings.  I’ve had arguments with architects and contractors who wanted to spray closed-cell foam insulation between the rafters under slate roofs.  Some specified removing all the slate and covering the roof with an ice and water shield membrane then reinstalling the slate, effectively “sealing” the roof tight.  Besides being an unnecessary, exorbitant extra cost, there’s a big problem with these grand, USGBC-inspired plans:  they actually destroy the materials in a traditional roofing system.

Slate, clay tiles and wood shingles are traditionally fastened to battens, skip sheathing or regular old boards—not plywood, no underlayments.  The roofs are water tight, not air tight and the building breaths through the roof.  Fiberglass insulation can improve energy efficiency and reduce heat loss without preventing the roof from breathing.  Additionally, soffit and ridge ventilation can be added if desired.  Traditional roof materials like slate, clay tile and cedar shingles experience condensation.  The passage of vapor helps dry things out.  When you stop the roof from breathing everything stays wet.

Slate is comprised of thin layers of metamorphic rock that delaminate and fall apart when they are kept damp for months.  Clay tiles, like terra cotta and brick, will disintegrate.  Wood shingles rot.  Steel fasteners will experience corrosion and fail.  This has been the end of many a slate roof; I’ve pulled the slates off the roof and seen it with my own eyes.  Cedar shingle roofs will last five years, max, when installed on a solid roof deck covered in ice and water shield.  The reality is this: greener is not always better, especially when wielded by those unfamiliar with traditional building systems.  “The greenest building is the one already there” is a common expression in the historic preservation world yet it’s never heard in “green building” circles.  Go figure.       

When do building materials turn into historic fabric?

Historic fabric is a term used regularly in the historic preservation world but what it is or—better—how it comes to be, receives disproportionately little attention. McGraw-Hill’s Dictionary of Architecture and Construction defines historic fabric as “those portions of a building fabric that are of historic significance.”[1]  This definition implies that materials that are part of a building develop significance, presumably over time and as it relates to the life of the building.  One might also infer from the definition that some parts of a building may not possess historic significance.  What other sources provide a definition for historic fabric?  It would be ideal to point to a definition supplied in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties but one does not exist.  Surprised?  There’s no definition of historic fabric in the National Park Service’s Cultural Resources Management Guideline’s glossary either.

The Secretary’s Standards do address significance, however, as it relates to tangible things like cornices and columns and they identify four strategies for effectively dealing with historic buildings: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.  The first approach, preservation, is the most desirable and “places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair.” Further: “It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made.”[2] Changes to a building, such as a mansard roof added to an Italianate or so-called Victorian details added to a brick building in the Federal style, are an accepted part of its record and how it’s evolved over time.

However, exactly where and when old alterations or changes to a building develop significance and become historic fabric is not clearly defined for us by the Standards.  And, if “respectful changes and alterations” are to be preserved, why have we decided that the continuum has stopped and we are resistant to additional changes and alterations? Indeed, a great deal of attention has been focused on how to create historically appropriate additions to existing buildings—make it like the original, but easily distinguishable, and smaller in scale. But what about a 1920s rear ell on a Greek Revival? If it looks “right” we want to save it but, if it doesn’t resonate with our collective sense of taste and what we think it should look like—if it doesn’t look “right”—then we’re receptive to wholesale alteration or even demolition.

In my experience as a contractor and consultant I have appeared before numerous historic district commissions throughout New York and New England. This has afforded me the opportunity to listen in as applicants for certificates of appropriateness make their pitch for permission to replace windows, change facades or roofing materials, and otherwise destroy historic fabric. The part I’ve always found most fascinating is when the element or system the applicant wants to demolish is part of the “respectful changes and alterations” that have been made over time. If the alterations are respectful, as the Secretary’s Guidelines indicate, the commission will fight hard to protect them. If not, approval is often swift and paves the way for the demo crew. Does respectful mean it ‘looks right’?

Respectful is a relatively subjective term and, as it applies to a discussion about the value, significance or integrity of an architectural detail, more subjective still. Merriam-Webster defines respectful as “marked by or showing respect or deference.” So, do respectful changes and alterations show deference to the original building? Perhaps not in style (reference the earlier examples of the Italianate and the Federal-style buildings with juxtaposed styles as major alterations) but in the quality of the craftsmanship and the materials used? The dictionary’s definition of deference as “a way of behaving that shows respect for … something” is of little help. Unhelpful, that is, unless we view the term esoterically and, in this context, meaning that the newer work is of a quality and standard worthy of standing beside the original.

That would be a convenient conclusion, if not for the fact that the historic preservation world possesses a general aversion to the idea of altering historic buildings, and this inference would seem to indicate that new alterations and changes can be viewed as acceptable if the quality of work is very high. Returning to the “building's continuum over time” issue, one might think that worthwhile, respectful alterations and changes ceased by the beginning of the twentieth century or perhaps as late as the 1930s when sun porches were vogue additions atop single story bump-outs at the rear of nineteenth century homes. Adding a Second Empire mansard roof to an Italianate, or Victorian details to a brick Georgian, are a clear mishmash of styles that, if proposed today, would be unacceptable.

Is that because the changes, dramatic as they were 150 years ago, are now deemed respectful because they, too, are ancient and reverent? This smacks of Ruskin: “When we build let us think we build forever ... that a time is to come when these stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say, as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, ‘See! This our fathers did for us.’”[3] There is something special about a hand-planed molding, a carved stone capital, or a centuries-old brick wall—and we treat them with reverence out of respect for the quality of craftsmanship and materials that have endured the test of time. The tangible item that is ancient is automatically awarded respect and shown deference because it is old, and as Ruskin would indicate, becomes sacred. Modifications and alterations to the building, no matter how dramatic they may have been then, are acceptable now and protected.  

Circle back to the earlier question: Exactly when do alterations or changes to a building become historic fabric? Imagine if the owner of the Italianate sought a certificate of appropriateness to remove the mansard roof and restore the building to its original style. His application would undoubtedly be rejected. But what if there was an addition on the side of the building from 1900; would it be considered historic fabric? Why or why not? Since we’re dealing with subjective terms, and varying views, perhaps it depends less on the materials and craftsmanship than one might think. Some historic district commissioners may be patently against demolition and, as such, the “continuum over time … respect for changes” argument is well-suited. Still, even staunch preservationists have a breaking point; some changes must be unacceptable and worthy of the landfill.

Wherever that line lies, on the other side is the place where building materials turn into historic fabric.

---

[1] McGraw-Hill. Dictionary of Architecture and Construction, (2003)

[2] Weeks, Kay D., and Grimmer, Anne E. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, (1995) 

[3] Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, (1849)

All photos courtesy Carole Osterink http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/

Traditional building materials: Still the best choice for #historicpreservation

 

While the internet may be a fantastic tool for sharing information, we must realize that good advice is transmitted as easily as bad.  Consider this recent dialogue from a historic preservation message board in New England.  An architect asked, “Has anyone had experience with use of cellular PVC to ‘replicate’ architectural details on a historic building?”

 
While the respondents were quick to cry nay! for that use, I was surprised by how many suggested that there are permissive uses of PVC composites. In fact, the chairman of a historical commission near Boston indicated that they had adopted a policy of allowing cellular PVC in place of ground-contact lumber (like bottom step risers and porch skirt boards) and rooftop balustrades (if traditional profiles are duplicated) in their local historic districts.

I was shocked.

In the limited instances where wood-meets-earth or the worst precipitation (window sills, balustrades and stair treads), PVC composites may appear to be an attractive alternative. But its use should be considered with caution; new composite risers, fascia plates and sills will not show signs of degradation, but they will conceal what's happening to wooden structural members behind them.  So, when it fails, be prepared for wholesale failure of the system.  ("Gee, the stairs looked great ... who knew the stringers were rotted?")

Like many issues in restoration work, this one can be attributed to a lack of informed sources.  The building owner typically knows only as much as the contractor has told them.  PVC composites are widely available and spend a tremendous amount of money "educating" would-be consumers through marketing. Consider the Secretary of the Interior's position on the subject:

"If repair by stabilization, consolidation, and conservation proves inadequate, the next level of intervention involves the limited replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features when there are surviving prototypes (for example, brackets, dentils, steps, plaster, or portions of slate or tile roofing). The replacement material needs to match the old both physically and visually, i.e., wood with wood, etc. Thus, with the exception of hidden structural reinforcement and new mechanical system components, substitute materials are not appropriate in the treatment Preservation."[1] (Underlining added for emphasis)  

The use of PVC composites is an attempt to cut corners and remove maintenance and upkeep from the equation.  Consider the use of Spanish cedar, mahogany, oak, and other hardwoods in these limited applications.  You may be surprised how close the price is to the composite materials.

Photo credits:  Three accompanying photos, all courtesy of the author, depicting the finials that will be replicated in the millwork shop for the author’s upcoming project at Historic New England’s ‘Roseland Cottage’ in Woodstock, Connecticut.

 

 

---

[1] Standards for Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Historic Buildings

(http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/preserve/preserve_approach.htm)

Be Prepared: Maintenance plans for historic structures

As soon as a building is constructed or rehabilitated, the natural process of deterioration begins.  Preservation has been defined as "the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the on-going maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction."[1]

The most important component of any plan to preserve a historic structure is maintenance.  Regular inspection and maintenance of systems will help preserve the integrity of historic building fabric. If that fabric is maintained, deterioration will be minimized or eliminated. Maintenance is the most cost effective method of extending the service life of a building system.  By logical extension, maintenance is the key to preservation. While the decay of components of the envelope cannot be avoided, neglect can actually cause this process to increase at an exponential rate.  When maintenance has been deferred, and a problem suddenly rears its ugly head, it is not uncommon for the reaction to be swift and inappropriate.  The use of the wrong materials and methods will often cause worse damage to irreplaceable historic building fabric.

When considered in the long term, the cost to maintain historic structures is significantly less than the restoration of historic systems and materials, and it creates far less disruption to building occupants. When a property owner or manager creates a maintenance program for their building, it is strongly recommended that they seek the counsel of a preservation consultant, and/or experienced contractor. The maintenance program should clearly identify and describe courses of action that are specific to the building. Every historic structure, no matter how small, should have a written guide that includes:

·         Lists and schedules for periodic inspections of each system.  These should be set-up in a ‘checklist’ format, to ensure uniformity of procedures over time;

·         Blank elevations of the building to be marked up during inspections and after any work takes place;

·         A full set of actual photographs that comprehensively document the conditions of the entire structure as well as a digital copy of each.  This album will grow over time;

·         An emergency list of contractors who can be called upon in an emergency, especially HVAC, electrician, plumber, and roofer;

·         Individualized procedures for the historically appropriate handling of the individual systems and materials of the building; and,

·         Hard copies of completed reports that document all work and inspections.  Include copies of estimates, contracts, warranty cards, paint colors, mortar recipes, materials sources, and any other information that will be needed by future stewards of the structure.

Maintenance is the most important preservation treatment for extending the life of an historic property.  It will slow the natural process of deterioration and prolong the natural service lives of the historic fabric of the envelope.  A written maintenance plan will help preservation planners organize, schedule inspections, and guide the work necessary to for a historic building. When a property owner or manager creates a maintenance program for their building, it is strongly recommended that they seek the counsel of a preservation consultant, and/or experienced contractor. The maintenance program should clearly identify and describe courses of action that are specific to the building. When the full life cycle of a building is considered, there is no smarter money spent than on maintenance.

---

[1] National Park Service, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Toolkit for  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, glossary of terms
 

Twelve step program: Increasing public awareness of historic preservation in your community

Increasing public awareness of historic preservation in the community requires a dynamic approach and multi-pronged initiative to be successful.  This article looks at several ideas that can be used by historical commissions, advocacy groups and municipalities to build value in their historic building stock and raise awareness of historic structures in the community.  Some of the recommended actions are relatively involved, such as the creation of an annual Olde Towne Festival, and require others from the community in the planning, coordination and execution of the plan.  Others, such as the creation of social media and websites, are low-hanging fruit: ready, accessible, inexpensive—often free—methods to reach a wide audience quickly and easily. To increase public awareness of the historic resources that contribute directly to the heritage of their built environment, the people must develop a connection with place.  The following ideas can be implemented by motivated individuals who are dedicated to promoting the goals and objectives of increased public awareness of historic preservation, largely without great expense or effort:    

(1)  Use of social media and the internet to promote historic preservation   The municipality’s website is the first free opportunity to promote historic preservation and the organization.  Additional links to social media and other historic preservation-related web pages should be here.  Having a presence on the internet is critical to the successful promotion of and long-term participation in  historic preservation in the community.  Facebook, Twitter, Google+, WordPress, and YouTube can be used to easily and effectively increase public awareness of historic preservation and make the organization an accessible member of the community.  WordPress offers a way to create an inexpensive (or even free) website.  The new web page should also contain an active blog with frequent entries and updates; this reinforces the sense of “presence” in the community. This is the primary way to attract younger participants.

(2)  Develop a strong relationship with the media  Invite members of the mainstream media to events and meetings, issue press releases, and provide photos for print media/web use.   When an event or important meeting is planned, promote it through local television news stations and newspapers and invite them to attend.  If a public access channel exists it could be used to televise meetings.  Some committees and commissions have created YouTube channels to document and provide access to their meetings. The media should be encouraged to “donate” space in their print publications for op-ed articles about the importance of preservation in the community and regular columns about local or regional history and the goings-on of historic preservation in the community.

(3)  Develop a Historic Preservation Plan  The Plan serves as a ten (10) year action plan for historic preservation in the municipality and is designed to serve as the historic preservation component of a comprehensive master plan.  In Massachusetts, Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds can be used for a historic preservation survey. The historical commission thereafter develops a request for consultant services to develop a preservation plan, to include consideration of historic landscapes. Consultants collect and assess the inventory of information on historic resources, as well as local government’s historic preservation tools (development rules and regulations).  The consultants present the commission with a summary of their findings and preliminary recommendations regarding the historic inventory.  Next, the public participation phase solicits community input concerning local historic preservation efforts and preservation priorities.  Public comment is sought in three ways: surveys, interviews and public forums.  Based on the results of the public participation phase, the commission works with the consultants to refine a draft Preservation Plan which is then presented to several boards and committees for comment.  Finally, after any necessary edits and revisions, the Historic Preservation Plan is completed and approved.

(4)  Create public education programs  These can include all manner of events and the production of materials for attendees.  . Guest speakers from the private sector are available to speak on a variety of topics related historic preservation and public history.  These programs could be conducted in the historic structures, themselves, so that attendees develop a connection to the buildings and an appreciation for them.  Speakers do no not have to focus on esoteric topics alone.  They can increase awareness and encourage materials conservation:  “Saving and restoring the windows on your old house,” or, “How to improve the energy efficiency of your home,” or, “Tricks for the repair and restoration of your old house.”  In addition to advertising through the media and internet, physically post advertisements for the events at Lowe’s, Home Depot and other home centers to attract local home owners and DIY’ers.  Creating partnerships with such commercial entities may also produce sponsorship in the form of materials and funding for these and other events.

(5)  Present awards to community members for preservation efforts  Publicly recognize homeowners that restore vintage structures or a local citizen or elected official who advocates for historic preservation in the community. No static number each year, just an annual recognition of those who make the effort.   It’s about instilling pride in place; buildings are the tangible objects that represent that place.  Use it as an opportunity to identify other historic preservation-minded members of the community and encourage them to get involved.

(6)  Sponsor and stage public events   Create an annual event that brings the entire community together for a weekend celebration.  Take advantage of parks and open spaces next to historic buildings and stage a portion inside.  Perhaps an annual pumpkin festival with dunking booth or a travelling carnival with bake sale inside the building.  All of these events would have an information booth with print media items.  A more ambitious endeavor would be to create an annual Olde Towne Festival in the Fall with a series of events all at the different historic properties:  an amusement park rides at the old school house and bake/craft sale inside; an involved haunted house created in art classes and staffed by school kids at the old village hall; and, a book sale and police-sponsored kid ID program at the library.  ‘Olde Towne' days starts with a parade at the elementary school and ends at the park next to one of the historic buildings.  The select board and other dignitaries form at the review stand (on the front porch of yet another historic building, perhaps the town hall) as various local sports teams and civic organizations march by—and don’t forget the fire engines. During the festival, coordinate and offer a tour of old homes with proud members of the public and offer informative tours of the historic buildings that speak to the history and architecture of the structures.  Through these experiences and association people will realize an intrinsic value in the structures as they become a part of the memories that they form.

(7)  Partner with the school district   Create low cost field trips to these buildings for the town’s school children that will enable them to develop an early appreciation for their community’s history as represented by the structures that define its built heritage.

(8)  Create local historic districts The Massachusetts Historical Commission provides a guidebook on how the municipality can pass a by-law or ordinance consistent with MGL 40C to create local historic districts.  In Massachusetts they don’t allow an individual building to be landmarked—they allow the town to create districts with only one building in them.  The organization should advocate for the creation of local historic districts that include the applicable buildings owned by the municipality.  There will be no public outcry from citizens who think they’ll be told what color to paint their houses.  The creation of the local historic districts should be covered by the media to demonstrate how protecting historic structures can be harmless and pain-free.  Local districts can be expanded to include additional buildings when others want to be a part of it. Churches are generally enthusiastic because their members have strong memories and pride in place—they like the idea of the building being there forever.

(9)  Hire a public relations consultant or seek donated services of same    Increasing public awareness for historic preservation is not a full time job.  However, a public relations consultant could be a cost effective way to plan strategies for promoting historic preservation as time and budget allow.  The members of the community who will execute this plan to increase public awareness of historic preservation are all volunteers.  Retaining the services of a PR consultant, from time to time, is an effective way to turn ideas into action as budgets allow.


(10)  Partner with State and Local Organizations   Form a bond with historic preservation resources such as colleges and universities as well as the state historic preservation office by sponsoring guest lectures and local and regional tours and encouraging participation by residents in the many free historic preservation-related offerings available from these organizations.  Sponsoring can be as simple as organizing, advertising (i.e., on the website and printed flyers) and providing space for the presentations.

 

(11)  Contact and pool resources with other similar organizations    Learn what others are doing to promote historic preservation. See what commonalities are shared. Promotion of historic preservation could be jointly produced to take advantage of regional talents and make limited resources go further.  Go regional.

(12)  Consider establishing a historic signage program    This is a simple way to promote historic preservation, demonstrate pride of place and educate the community about its heritage. Start with municipal properties. Establish appropriate criteria to encourage private participation.

Increasing public awareness of historic preservation in the community requires a dynamic approach and multi-pronged initiative to be successful.  The ideas in this article can be implemented without great expense or effort by a dedicated team.  Historical commissions, advocacy groups and municipalities can build value in their historic building stock and raise awareness of historic structures in the community.  Increased public awareness of the historic resources that contribute directly to the heritage of the built environment can be had if people develop a connection with place. It’s about instilling pride in place; buildings are the tangible objects that represent that place. 

 

CONTACT US TODAY  to discuss increasing public awareness of historic preservation in your community  <<click here to email>>

Or call us at 877.622.8973     <<Check out or WEBSITE by clicking here>>

 

Appropriate Roofing Material Choices for Historic Structures

Selecting a historically appropriate roofing material is often restrictive as a simple matter of economy. Not everyone can afford a new slate roof. But individually landmarked structures and those in local historic districts are often monitored by historic district commissions (HDCs) that often require property owners to replace in-kind or with an otherwise historically appropriate material.  While the preference is typically “replacement in kind,” an intelligent argument for an alternative can often be made.  The HDC can consider other materials that were available at the time of construction, as well as what buildings of similar style in the community have on their roofs. A Queen Anne may have started with a polychromatic Vermont slate roof, but the commission can consider that nearby Queen Annes have monochromatic Monson slate or even cedar shingles. A Greek Revival may have a silver-coated tin roof, but few would argue with a homeowner willing to replace with copper standing seam. This blog article will look at several American building styles and the materials used to roof them.

 

Colonial Styles, 1620 to 1780

From the New England Salt Box to the Dutch vernacular homes of upstate New York, the earliest structures in the American colonies were roofed with wood shingles. It is a myth that they were covered with hand-split shakes, because these do not hold up well, rotting and failing in just a few years; ask anyone who has made the mistake of using them. Wood shingles were easily made by planing down the shakes to a uniform thickness for ease of installation.  In the Northeast, Eastern White Cedar was the typical material used, while cypress was often used in the South. Western Red Cedar was not used much in the eastern U.S. until after the 1850s and should not be considered appropriate on a circa-1820, Federal-style structure in Connecticut. Eastern White Cedar, however, rarely lasts longer than ten years in a roofing application. Instead, preservation architects now specify Alaskan Yellow Cedar. Predominantly distributed from British Columbia, this dense wood is favored because of its longevity and because it develops a silvery patina, like Eastern White, within one year.

Federal and Neoclassical Styles, 1780 to 1820

 

Many of these buildings have low-sloped roofs and are often obstructed by a balustrade that runs across the top of the eaves. In congested, urban environments the roof may not even be visible from the street. This raises the obvious question: What needs to be done when an element of the exterior is not within the street view? Most HDCs use that standard question to limit their purview over a proposed alteration.   If your roof falls into this category, then you should pick the most enduring and sustainable material you can afford. These structures were not often originally covered in slate, although many are today. Original roofs were wooden shingles, less than ideal on a roof with a shallow pitch. In some limited instances, standing-seam or flat-lock seamed roofs are seen on these building styles. To find out what’s appropriate, check out roofs on structures of the same style in your neighborhood and neighboring communities.

Greek Revival, 1820 to 1850

This style also features a low-sloped roof, typically 4:12. While the original roof material may have been wooden shingles, many in the Northeast were long ago replaced by a more sustainable material. Flat-lock tin or terne-coated steel were typical from the late 1800s on. Many have standing-seam roofing, although this system tends to be less conducive to the many and varied changes in the roof plane that multiple roofs and additions create.  Because many of these structures also have box gutters at the eaves, keep in mind that re-lining these systems is costly and will need to tie in to the new roof material. It is not uncommon for an affordable membrane (like EPDM or TPO) to be used on the majority of the roof and a costlier, appropriate material (like copper) to cover the visible, projecting “porch” roof

Gothic Revival, 1840 to 1860

While many of these structures were initially covered with wooden shingles, many had decorative styles and patterns. This was also a popular style when the slate industry in Vermont, Pennsylvania and Virginia started to produce roofing slate in such quantities that it could be realistically specified as a material choice. The influence of architect Frank Furness and others shone through, as polychromatic slate patterns adorned the Gothic “cottages” of Alexander Jackson Davis, Andrew Jackson Downing and their many disciples. In the South and in the Mid-Atlantic states, standing-seam roofing is quite common. Again, check out roofs on buildings of the same style in your neighborhood and neighboring communities. What’s appropriate?

Italianate, 1845 to 1875

While many Italianates have out-of-sight, low-sloped roofs that an HDC will not be concerned about, many of the “villa” variety have gables and other roof planes that are visible from the street. Like those on Greek Revivals, these roofs were often clad in flat-lock seamed or standing-seam sheet metal. In later years, many were re-roofed with clay tiles. Note that the advent of this new material correlates with the growth of the Ludowici firm in Chicago in the 1880s. The HDC will likely require replacement in-kind to create the original look, although there may be some leeway with respect to the material itself. After all, it’s all about keeping up appearances.

Second Empire, 1855 to 1880

The mansard roof is the character-defining feature of this style. A mansard is essentially a hipped gambrel. The lower roof, between the eaves and upper cornice, is most often covered in slate. More often than not, these parts of the roof can be restored and do not need to be replaced. If they do need replacement, be prepared to face an HDC that’s going to want it done in-kind. Keep in mind that these structures almost always have (or had) a built-in gutter at the eaves.
The sheet-metal linings fail, and replacement is expensive – especially if they failed long ago and wood rot has resulted from the neglect. The upper roof typically ranges from flat to a low-sloped 4:12 pitch. Once the roof becomes visible from the street, the material choice becomes important, and the same argument applied to Greek Revival and Italianate styles holds true here.

Queen Anne, 1880 to 1910

Severe recessions in the U.S. during the 1870s stymied new construction. By the time the economy rebounded, the Queen Anne had replaced the Second Empire as the popular style of choice. Improvements in rail service, as well as material fabrication and production, were game changers. Architects and builders roofed these Victorians with various slate colors, cedar shingles, and flat-lock and standing-seam copper, along with different colors and shapes of clay tiles. And, often, these buildings have combinations of roofing materials and styles.

Unfortunately, many HDCs allow building owners to replace original roof fabric with so-called “architectural shingles.” These shingles were created to replicate wood shingle (or shake) roofs in an economical way. It is a fallacy that they are an appropriate alternative to slate; in fact, three-tab shingles look more like slate than architectural shingles do. Before you replace your entire roof, consider that it may only be the flashings that need replacement.

Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability

Historic Preservation Lecture Series

UMass Historic Preservation Program
Second Symposium on Preservation and Sustainability

“Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability”

Sponsored by:

University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Department of Architecture + Design
Public History Program/Department of History
Department of Environmental Conservation: Building Construction, & Technology
The UMASS/Hancock Shaker Village Historic Preservation Program

When: Friday, March 01, 2013 from 1:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Where: University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Lincoln Campus Center, Room 165
Admission: Open to the public (See below if seeking AIA credits)

Symposium Goals:
This symposium will explore the challenges of preserving cultural and historic resources in an era of climate change and the additional challenge of bringing sustainability to these sites. Each presentation will be followed by a short question and answer period.

Welcome and Introduction:
Max Page, Ph.D., Professor of Architecture and History and Director Historic Preservation Program, UMASS-Amherst

Keynote Speaker:
Diane Barthel-Bouchier (SUNY-Stony Brook)
Cultural heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability — a global view of how cultural heritage is responding to the climate crisis and the challenge of sustainable development.

Case Studies:
Ethan Carr (UMass-Amherst, Landscape Architecture/Regional Planning)
The Sustainable Historic Site: Martin Van Buren and Lindenwald — a description and analysis of a conservation–based plan to transform the landscape of this presidential homestead.

David Glassberg (UMass-Amherst, History);
“Sustainability and Landscape Character on Cape Cod?” An examination of Cape Cod historic resources and the effects climate change may have and the effort to quantify the effect of climate change on historical and cultural resources.

Carey Clouse (UMass-Amherst, LARP and Architecture + Design)
“Farming Havana: Preserving Urban Agriculture Landscapes for Food Security”
This session will highlight the progressive urban food landscapes in Havana, Cuba, while addressing the role of open space preservation and conservation in the larger context of food security and environmental stewardship.

Chris Skelly (Massachusetts Historical Commission)
Preservation and Sustainability: Policy and Practice in Massachusetts. Skelly, the head of local programs for the Massachusetts Historical Commission, will offer examples of effective projects and policies in Massachusetts’ communities.

Directions & Parking

For directions and maps: http://www.umass.edu/visitorsctr/Directions_to_Campus/
Parking: parking is available at the Campus Center garage (for a fee).

Learning Units
For all architects, learning units can be earned by attending this or any of the WMAIA monthly programs. For more information regarding learning units, contact Lorin Starr at director@wmaia.org

Cost:
$50 for those seeking AIA Learning Units. (Note, this program is free and open to the public, however, please register with WMAIA and submit the administrative fee if you want WMAIA to record Learning Units (LU’s)

For those non-students who are not seeking AIA credit, a donation of $10 is suggested.
 

SEMINAR TOMORROW - Friday 19 October - Green Design and Historic Preservation: Exploring the Historic Building Envelope - Amherst, MA

University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Department of Architecture + Design

Department of Environmental Conservation, Building Construction & Technology

The UMASS/Hancock Shaker Village Historic Preservation Program

When:  Friday, October 19, 2012; 1:00 – 5:30 PM

Where:  University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Lincoln Campus Center, Room 165-169
Admission:  Free and open to the public

Program

This workshop examines the tension between historical integrity and the quest for greater energy efficiency from the building envelope.  Topics include:

·         Positioning Preservation in the Center of Green Building
·         Classical and Traditional Details of the Envelope
·         Merits of Original Windows
·         Improving Performance of Historic Building Thermal Envelopes
·         Case Study: UMASS Holdsworth Hall

Speakers

Jack Alvarez, AIA, Landmark Consulting LLC

Matthew Bronski, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH), Boston
Carl Fiocchi, M.Arch., Teaches green building and historic preservation UMASS/Amherst
Thomas RC Hartman, AIA, Principal, Coldham & Hartman Architects, Amherst MA
Lisa Kersavage, M.Sc., Project Manager, Lower Mississippi River Delta Design Initiative, NYC, NY
Max Page, Ph.D., Director of Historic Preservation Program, UMASS/Amherst
Ludmilla Pavlova, AIA, Senior Facilities Planner in Campus Planning at UMass/Amherst
Ben Weil, Ph.D., Teaches courses in energy efficient buildings UMASS/Amherst
 
Directions & Parking

 

For directions and maps: http://www.umass.edu/visitorsctr/Directions_to_Campus/  
Parking: parking is available at the Campus Center garage (for a fee).

Learning Units

For all architects, learning units can be earned by attending this or any of the WMAIA monthly programs. For more information regarding learning units contact Lorin Starr at director@wmaia.org
LEED Credential Maintenance credits are available through self-reporting.  4 Non-LEED credits are possible for those attending the entire event.

For more information about the M.Sc. in historic preservation program at UMass-Amherst

 
Click here:   http://umasshsv.wordpress.com/

For more information about the speakers

Click here:  http://preservationinaction.blogspot.com/2012/09/save-date-green-design-and-historic.html

 

Schedule

 

1:00 – 1:15	Opening Remarks : Max Page
1:15 – 2:00	Introduction of  and Presentation of  Lisa Kersavage
2:00 – 2:45	Introduction of  and Presentation of  Mathew Bronski
2:45 – 3:30	Introduction of and Presentation of  Jack Alvarez
3:30– 3:45	Break and  Refreshments
3:45 - 4:30	Introduction of and Presentation of Tom Hartman
4:30 – 5:15	Introduction of  and Presentation of  Holdsworth Speakers