Constructed in 1936, Hansee Hall is the longest continuously active residential building, also one of the largest residential structures (111,364 square feet) on the University of Washington Seattle campus. Designed in the collegiate gothic style by John Graham and David Myers, with supervising architects of Bebb & Gould, it is a cast-in-place concrete structure with a multi-toned brick veneer, multi-light steel windows, and Vermont slate roof.

Overall appearance is a Commercial Standard slate roof approximately 3/16” thick laid in a Dutch Lap pattern. Hip slates are smaller slates set in a Comb Ridge method laid with butt joints and roof dormers with fantailed hip detail. Open valleys are copper. Copper slating nails in two sizes, 1 1/2” at the field and 3 1/4” at the ridge were used. Slate courses consist of various sizes ranging in widths from 9 inches to 20 inches and consistent lengths of 20 inches. Tile colors range from grey to green yielding upon weathering to a red tone, as well as some purple accent slate. The dormer walls and roof are clad in slate. All copper sheets used for flashing, window surrounds, profiles, gutter-linings, etc., were crimped by passing through heavy rolls to form 3/16-inch, V-shaped corrugations or ridges in the sheets in the direction of the short dimension following standard specifications of the period.

Scope
In 2023, interior plaster walls and plaster ceilings were exhibiting signs of water intrusion and the University of Washington was concerned the water migration was due to the 86-year old slate roof. Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) was retained review previous building envelope reports, to evaluate the existing conditions of the roof, recommend a path to mitigate the water intrusion, and to provide a professional opinion on the “remaining life expectancy” of the existing slate roof system.

PMA approached the process from both a research perspective and an as-built investigation perspective. Our first step was to commission a laser scan point cloud and photogrammetry record of the entire roof design, surfaces, and exposed conditions. Combing the laser scan and photogrammetry precision eliminated the need to access the entire slate surface, as well as, provided documentation of all visible deficiencies with a accuracy of 1/8”. These tools allow for more methodical review of the roof surface within an office environment and provide a higher degree of accuracy for capturing deficiencies in difficult access areas.

After the digital captures, PMA guided the selective removal, with the assistance of a premier slate roof contractor, of slate units in specific locations corresponding with different environmental exposures, different locations within the field, along the ridge, and adjacent to open valleys for further assessment of the installation, under layment conditions, and laboratory testing. The National Slate Association, Technical Bulletin #7, Slate Roof Condition Assessment Surveys was referenced against PMA experience and standard slate roof assessment methodology.

Initial field observations indicated that the comb ridge slates were orignally installed incorrectly without an overlap, without elastic sealant, and installed with a ½” wide gap the length of the ridge exposing the wood structural deck. From the ground, the gable ends of the roof appeared to have decayed material extruding from beneath the slate tile field. Upon closer observation, it was noted that a ¾” thick slate damp proof course is set in mortar on top of the masonry veneer walls. There is no gable end edge flashing thus exposing the bedding layers of the damp proof course to weather and causing the cleavage planes to expand, shear, and fail. Visually, the green slate that has changed tone to red appear to be more weathered than the other slate colors. In readily accessible roof areas, the slate roof field had numerous incorrect repairs including face nailing, the use of galvanized nails, and broken underlying slate courses, evidence of traffic on the slate without adequate protection. However, the only deficiency aligning with interior water intrusion were the open ridges at cross gables.

PMA sent slate samples to several labs to conduct standard ASTM C 406 Standard Specification for Roofing Slate grading including C 120 Test Methods of Flexure Testing of Slate, C 121 Test Method for Water Absorption, and C217 Test Method for Weather Resistance of Slate. Petrographic examination was also conducted specifically looking for Calcite content and the presence of Carbonaceous ribbons.

Evaluation Process
As roof system observations and assessments were performed, and a review of the photogrammetry and laser scan were completed, it became apparent that the source of interior water was not resulting from an aged slate roof. Except for very specific locations, the slate roof was in good condition. Field tile failures were less than 4%. (Slate roofing industry standards recommend replacement when failure rates are approximately 20%) Original copper flashing systems were sound with no pin holes or galvanic corrosion noted. Felt underlayment was in place, continuous, not broken, but very brittle due to age. (PMA did not test the underlayment for asbestos content (a common component of early under layments) as hazardous material content was not a contributing factor of water infiltration. The construction means and methods conformed closely to the original design documents allowing PMA to evaluate original design details for water tightness.

As a result of the field assessment preliminary findings, UW raised the question of ‘what is the remaining service life of the existing slate roof system.’ Would the system last another 20 – 25 years (the equivalent time of a typical new (non-slate) roof system warranty). To better evaluate future life expectancy, PMA augmented the on-site assessment with laboratory testing. ASTM C406 establishes the “grade” of new roofing slate resulting from ASTM C120 & ASTM C121 testing methods. The grade ranges are: Grade 1 = 75yr +; Grade 2 = 40 – 75 yrs; Grade 3 = 20 – 40 yrs. Color fastness grades are categorized into: Unfading / semi-weathering / weathering. Color fastness does not correlate to longevity of the slate unit. The United States slate industry has no empirical measurements for aged slate roof service life evaluation.

Testing
Due to a lack of knowledge of slate materials, lack of familiarity with slate construction techniques, and inadequate assessment approach, field observations of archaic / historic slate are often misinterpreted as deficiencies. PMA demonstrated through research and technical analysis that the existing slate roof had substantial life and only targeted repairs were needed. This information saved millions of dollars and allowed limited resources to be placed elsewhere on the UW campus.

Slate roofs have been documented to last for 1,000 years. The oldest extant slate roof is the Saxony chapel in Bradford-on-Avon. Slate roofs originating from the same quarry as UW Hansee Hall are documented to be over 200 years old. Therefore, in theory, Hansee Hall slate has a potential life expectancy of another 100 years. A critical aspect of determining the life expectancy of archaic/older material, is understanding of the limitations associated with modern ASTM test methods. ASTM standards are not always accurate prediction of slate quality. The ASTM tests are designed for new, recently quarried slate. PMA used our experience and broadened our research into longevity by including testing means and methods from Europe and other countries outside the United States with longer years of slate testing. The standards in use on the market to certify slate are the European EN 12326 (parts 1 and 2), and the American ASTM C406, C120, C121 and C217. Further compounding the varying results from each of the testing standards is that some studies have shown there is a low correlation between this expected service life and the laboratory test results.

Water Absorption testing is the only common test approach to all the test standards. As slate ages, the interstitial water within the stone layers evaporates increasing the ability of the slate to absorb more water without damage. Water Absorption tests remain one of the essential tests for determining longevity in the field. Heavy reliance on Water Absorption tests results from the widely accepted fact that Freeze /Thaw test results have little to no impact on slate roof lifespan.

The diverse experience of PMA staff, including conservators, architects, preservation planners, and designers, coupled with our 20 year expertise of state and local building codes, historic construction means and methods, and familiarity with architectural styles and eras, gave the University of Washington a building envelope firm able to translate the value of the existing historic resource into economic and longevity terms.

Blog post written by PMA Founder and principal, Peter Meijer.

In July of 2023, PMA’s Skyla, Kate, and Jessica collaborated with team members from Movement Mortgage and Corazón Corvallis Wine Bar in Corvallis Oregon to give a presentation on the history of architectural styles in the Willamette Valley, (and other related architecture and preservation topics) to a group of local real estate agents.

Movement Mortgage first approached PMA a few months prior with the goal of creating a presentation to educate local real estate agents on the architecture of the area, what to expect when selling an older or historic home, and how to best describe the character defining features of these homes to their clients. These topics were enriched with a fun twist by incorporating a tasting of three local wines throughout the evening by Corazón Corvallis’ sommelier. PMA was extremely excited for this opportunity… what’s better than talking about architecture while drinking wine? Maybe a few things, but in this field it’s the equivalent to a walk on a tropical beach at sunset.

Our presentation had three “chapters.” The first, a brief background on architectural history and terms, the second on architectural forms and styles, and the third on a few technical aspects of historic architecture. Before we began discussing architectural styles of the area, we wanted to give our audience an overview of how the growth of the United States and the Willamette Valley spread architectural information and styles. As country-wide events like the invention of the automobile, the Great Depression, and the post-WWII housing boom influenced how and when houses were built, they also influenced what style of houses were built and how architectural information was spread, whether it was through pattern books, architectural expositions, or magazines.

PMA gave a brief overview of character defining features and form versus style before diving into architectural styles. To tailor our architectural styles discussion to the real estate agent clientele, PMA researched the most popular single family housing stock in Linn and Benton Counties priced between $400,000 to $600,000. A majority of the older and historic houses currently for sale were styles commonly built between 1900 and 1975, and modern adaptations of these styles dispersed throughout.

PMA began our discussion with Early Modern style houses that included Craftsman. After our first tasting of the 2019 Staking Claim Chardonnay from Adelsheim Vineyard, we discussed Bankers Modern houses that included Minimal Traditional- and Ranch-styled houses, and the Split-Level house form. Between wines two, the 2022 Pinot Noir Rosé from Elk Cove Vineyards, and three, the 2021 Pinot Noir from Lemelson Vineyard, we discussed “Neo” buildings. Since there are many new housing projects and developments occurring in the researched area, PMA also discussed “Neo” buildings by discussing how they are influenced by, and different from, historic styles. With each style, we gave
exterior and interior photo examples to explain the styles’ or forms’ character defining features.

After discussing forms and styles and tasting all the delicious wines, PMA concluded the presentation by discussing issues and hazards with 20th century housing, including hazardous materials and conditions, and buying and living in a historic home in a designated Historic District, including guidelines and preservation ordinances as well as homeowners’ associations.

At the end of the presentation, we had an amazing question and answer session and received some great feedback. We would love to use this presentation, or develop a similar one, again; are you or someone you know interested in an event like this one? If so, please reach out to Kate at kateh@pmapdx.com!

Blog post written by PMA preservation planner Jessica Schmitt, and Design associate Skyla Leavitt.

Twenty years ago I took a risk, and created Peter Meijer Architect. I had no idea where the leap into owning a business would take me.
The beginnings were much like all start-up creative endeavors: A single person firm occupying a basement office where the conference room was the dining table.

There were a lot of individuals and businesses that provided support. None more so then the first phone call asking, “What took me so long to start a firm?” And did I want help out on a historic property. PMA’s very first project was with the University of Washington, Architectural Hall.

Since then, PMA has come a long way and great individuals have contributed to our success. Most important are the contributions of the next leaders, especially those who have worked at PMA for more than 10 years. We have stayed true to our beginnings and continue to focus 100% on existing structures. Our skills have grown from providing the scientific understanding of preserving archaic building materials, to providing Prime architectural services for multi-million dollar renovations and restoration.
The projects have grown in both size and complexity. It is nice to see the growth from one individual to our current staff of architects, designers, and preservation planners. The office has moved out of the basement, down the street, up two floors, and finally purchased our own home complete with a side yard outdoor space in Southeast Portland in 2020.

With our start in Washington, the territory of the firm remains rooted in the Pacific Northwest. We love it here. Over the years we’ve had the pleasure of drifting off to North Dakota, Idaho, St. Louis, and a few other places where work has taken the firm. We like coming home to Portland.
Many of our original clients remain our clients – like the University of Washington. The Association for Preservation Technology annual conference held in October 2023 in Seattle featured a tour of historic buildings on the University of Washington’s campus. PMA’s contribution to that restoration includes seven structures. We count exceptional architectural firms as our partners to our success story. Those firms value both our expertise and knowledge of older properties and, more importantly, our skill as architects.

We are thankful for the confidence in PMA that all our friends, peers, colleagues, and clients have provided over the years. Our involvement on their projects have led to preservation awards, advocacy awards, technical paper awards, leadership commendation, and individual achievements.
In 20 years we have forged a strong understanding of who we are and what we have created. Our Core Values of Integrity / Leadership / Balance / Stewardship are reflected within the people at PMA, our commitment to our clients, and PMA’s acknowledgement of all that has influenced and created our first 20 years.
We are looking forward to the next great 20 years.

Blog post written by PMA Founder and principal, Peter Meijer.

It has been widely accepted by the larger building industry that the greenest building is the one that already exists, first posited by AIA president Carl Elefante in 2007. While this statement is frequently quoted, its specific implication has not enjoyed widespread application by the AEC industry—that improvements to existing buildings are quantifiably better at limiting greenhouse gas emissions than the construction of entirely new buildings. PMA’s case study goes beyond the assumption of “greenest building” by comparing data from an existing building rehabilitation project to the alternative, new construction. It also supports Elefante’s notion that preservation can be sustainable. This blog is a snapshot of PMA’s findings which are informed by existing data on embodied and operational carbon. It is important, in the industry’s push to reach net-zero by 2050, to understand how to measure a building’s carbon footprint—that begins with understanding the difference between embodied carbon and operational carbon. (Architecture2030, “Why the Built Environment” [Why The Building Sector? – Architecture 2030])

A building’s carbon footprint is found by calculating its embodied carbon and operational emissions. Embodied carbon is a measurement of the carbon dioxide and emissions produced during the construction of a building. It includes the sourcing of raw materials, the creation or production of new materials, the transportation of new materials and the emissions expelled during the construction process. Operational emissions are energy consumption tied to the building’s ongoing performance and use (World Economic Forum, “This is the next hurdle in the construction industry’s race to net-zero,” September 20, 2022, What Is Embodied Carbon? Overview and Examples). In the AEC industry, net-zero, also known as carbon neutrality, refers to a building’s carbon footprint (its embodied carbon and emission production or energy consumption) being equal to or less than that generated on site (Steven Winter Associates, Inc., “Net Zero Energy Buildings,” Whole Building Design Guide, August 2, 2016.).

Every building has both operational emissions, tied to ongoing use, and embodied carbon, created during the building’s construction. Combining a building’s operational emissions with its embodied carbon gives us that building’s carbon footprint. The larger a building’s carbon footprint is, the more detrimental its impact on the global warming potential. While a building’s operational emissions can increase or decrease depending on its continued performance and the efficiency of its mechanical systems, a building’s embodied carbon will remain tied to the building during its usable lifetime and then, after demolition, will remain tied to the wasted materials transported and consequently stored in a landfill.

There are ongoing efforts to measure and limit the AEC industry’s overall carbon footprint. The current goal of the industry is to achieve net-zero by 2040 to meet standards set by the Paris Climate Accords. Net-zero for the industry would be achieved when carbon emissions are zero or are 100% off-set by green energy produced.

One solution is the reuse of existing buildings. Existing building’s embodied carbon is significantly lower than new buildings because they generally do not require as many raw new materials as new buildings.. Rehabilitating existing buildings for the needs of today is one way that today’s designers are limiting the AEC industry’s carbon footprint.

PMA focuses exclusively on existing and historic buildings and has been exploring the feasibility of implementing net-zero in future renovation projects. The current goal is to measure the carbon footprint of finished or ongoing projects in the design phase to quantify the environmental impact of existing renovation compared to new construction. Former PMA intern, Caitlin Beesley, worked with associates Hali Knight and Skyla Leavitt on a case study that measured the carbon footprint of Fountain Place Apartments (FPA), a seismic retrofit project by PMA that was completed in November 2022. The project’s objective was to provide seismic and life safety upgrades to this 100-year-old building in an effort to extend its service life at least 50 years. For more background on Fountain Place Apartments, see our “History of Fountain Place Apartments, Formerly Wheeldon Annex”

It was hypothesized prior to the case study that the rehabilitation of FPA had resulted in less embodied carbon than a new building of the same size, based on the accepted view among many in the AEC industry. The case study sought to quantify this hypothesis, and to measure FPA’s finalized carbon footprint.
The building’s carbon footprint was analyzed using the Carbon Avoided: Retrofit Estimator (CARE) Tool ([CARE Tool | Carbon Avoided: Retrofit Estimator]). The CARE Tool not only measures a rehabilitated building’s carbon footprint—it also shows how much carbon was saved by rehabilitating instead of demolishing and building a comparable new building.

Initial Results
FPA’s project data, as processed by the CARE Tool, showed that the retrofit of the existing Fountain Place Apartment building resulted in significantly less embodied carbon than the construction of a hypothetical new building. The main takeaway from these results is that the retrofit of FPA, despite producing more operational emissions than a new building, had a decreased carbon footprint over a span of 50 years due to a lower amount of embodied carbon. Final numbers calculated by the CARE Tool are found in the table below:

An iterative focus of the case study’s analysis was a 100-year time frame to evaluate if, and when, the carbon footprint of the new building would fall below that of the existing renovation. In 100 years, a new building would likely have had a renovation or even been rebuilt, which would result in alterations to the embodied carbon and operational emissions of the case study’s scenario. The CARE Tool does not calculate for additional embodied carbon stemming from renovations to the new construction over time; this would need to be accounted for in an additional analysis using the tool.
While a hypothetical new building with new electrical and high-performance mechanical systems resulted in lower operational emissions as compared to the retrofit of FPA, the data shows that it would take approximately 70 years for the reduced carbon output from operational emissions to overcome the embodied carbon of a new building’s construction.

Results from analyzing FPA’s project data with the CARE Tool show that the rehabilitation of FPA resulted in significantly less embodied carbon than comparable new construction, and that despite having higher operational emissions than a new building, the retrofit had significantly less total emissions intensity for its 50-year extended lifetime than a new building with a 50-year lifespan. Understanding the impact embodied carbon and operational emissions have on a building’s CO2 emissions intensity is imperative for designers moving forward.
PMA’s case study shows, moving towards a net-zero future can be accomplished, in part, by retrofitting existing buildings. If we attempt to achieve carbon neutrality through a focus on new construction, it will take decades to overcome the additional embodied carbon produced as a product of that new construction. This time frame will likely exceed the Paris Agreement’s limit of the earth warming no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040 and will contribute to that warming. According to Architecture 2030, approximately two-thirds of the global building stock in 2040 will be buildings that exist today—the majority of these building’s embodied carbon is already locked in place, before rehabilitation or retrofit upgrades like the FPA project. Achieving net-zero requires that these existing buildings be upgraded and updated with systems that minimize their operational emissions.
The arguments for new construction usually fall back on the incorporation of new technology which improves the operational performance of a building, limiting emissions and energy usage. However, operational energy is only half of the data that makes up a building’s total carbon footprint; the other half is embodied carbon. While we have reliable data on operational energy that can be quantified using various metrics, less is known about the impacts of embodied carbon. Part of this is because measuring embodied carbon is difficult; it requires tracking carbon emissions related to a building’s construction prior to the completion of that building and is a game of estimation. Subsequently, embodied carbon has only recently been considered when discussing net-zero targets in the building industry. Its inclusion in the discussion, however, is necessary to holistically measure the environmental impacts of construction—specifically when it comes to comparing the rehabilitation of existing buildings to replacing them with new construction.
PMA plans to publish the case study referenced in this blog in the future, and looks forward to compiling and sharing similar research in the future.

Blog post written by PMA Intern Caitlin Beesley, Design associates Skyla Leavitt and Hali Knight.

Caitlin Beesley interned with PMA between March and June of 2023, researching sustainable materials, carbon calculators and life cycle analysis tools to be used in the office. Her internship culminated in a case study report on the carbon footprint of the Fountain Place Apartments seismic retrofit, a PMA project finalized in 2022. Caitlin holds degrees in architecture and history from the University of Idaho and is currently working on her master’s in historic preservation at the University of Oregon’s Portland campus.

Describe the focus of your internship at PMA. What aspects of your internship opportunity have you enjoyed most?

I started out researching material sustainability and sort of moved on from there to other deliverable projects. My first project was identifying the carbon impact of various insulation options for a PMA project, which was a fun introduction to the application of sustainable materials. For the second project, I came up with a list of calculators currently on the market or in a development phase, based on an interest at PMA to incorporate carbon calculation into project modeling and design. I worked closely with PMA associates Hali Knight and Skyla Leavitt on both projects. Hali and Skyla proposed using one of the calculators to explore the environmental impact of one of PMA’s recently finalized projects, which led to the carbon footprint case study report produced at the end of my internship. I enjoyed each of the projects, but my favorite was definitely the case study—the calculator we used, the Carbon Avoided: Retrofit Estimator (CARE) Tool, was a lot of fun to play around with. Writing up the CARE Tool findings into a report required a lot of additional information and consideration of design restraints, and a lot of help from Hali and Skyla, but I feel good about the end result.

Has your internship changed your perspective on historic preservation, or working with existing resources?

All three of the projects I worked on as an intern at PMA gave me new insight into the design process. Despite having a bachelor’s degree in architecture, most of my previous work experience has been with federal agencies. I’ve never worked for an architecture firm, so client-driven projects were foreign to me when I first came on board at PMA. Interning here has definitely given me a new perspective on the role of a designer, one that will help me and my ongoing education in the historic preservation field.

I have a lot of admiration for architects and designers who work within an existing architectural fabric. It can be limiting and unintuitive, especially for those of us who spent four-plus years focusing solely on new design in architecture school. PMA’s efforts to strengthen existing properties by extending their lifespans not only benefits their clients and the building occupants but also a wider community and global ecosystem. It’s noble work, one that counters our current culture of overconsumption and planned obsolescence. I’ve been very happy to be a part of it, even in a transitory way.

How will your internship experience influence your studies when you return to school?

The internship with PMA has been great opportunity to study how historic preservation and building reuse can be a catalyst for solving the climate crisis. In architecture school, I was very aware of the potential negative impact of the design and construction industry on the environment—it’s one reason I chose to explore historic preservation rather than continuing in the architecture profession. We’ve all heard “the greenest building is the one already built,” but there isn’t a lot of easy and accessible information out there that explores why this is. The carbon footprint case study I worked on with Hali and Skyla has helped me immensely in understanding how maintaining historic buildings is a net-positive for the planet. It’s also given me the tools to help explain this to others.

Do you have a favorite aspect about architecture or historic preservation?

When I was an undergrad, I had several professors who helped steer me towards historic preservation. One of them was fond of saying “every building has a story,” which spoke to me personally. Every building does have a story to tell, I firmly believe that—but buildings can also tell different stories to different people. They have layers of nuance and feeling and emotions, conveyed in their permanent materiality and their more impermanent use. Historic preservationists work at peeling back these layers so that a building and its stories aren’t lost or forgotten.

Buildings are also very complicated machines that require technical understanding to design, construct, operate and use. Understanding their place in our larger environment, similarly, demands that we look beyond their physical form and incorporate other fields of study into their analysis. How do people respond to a building? How do other buildings respond to it? How does the building itself respond to its surroundings? A lot goes into the historical and material interpretation of a building. I appreciate both perspectives, and have worked hard to incorporate them into my work and personal interests.

What architectural time period or style is most interesting to you and why?

This is a really tough question to answer. I think when I was younger I had more definitive preferences on style or time period, but as I continue to work in and explore the built environment I’ve discovered an appreciation for trends that I had previously discounted. For example, I never much liked Modernism when I was in architecture school. Modernism seemed boring, to paraphrase Robert Venturi. I’ve since come around. The history of Modernism on its own is more fascinating than I allowed as a younger student. Its social influences—the industrial revolution and wide-spread enfranchisement of the middle and working classes—alone make it a style worth studying. At the same time, I gained an appreciation of Modernism’s minimalist aesthetic. My learning curve on Modernism sums up how I feel about all architecture—there’s a lot to appreciate that goes beyond a building’s style.

Blog post written by Caitlin Beesley, PMA intern 2023.

PMA would like to thank Caitlin for her work, we thoroughly enjoyed her presence here and cannot wait to see what she does next!

The What, Why, and How of Coatings Analysis
Coatings analysis is the scientific study of a broad range of historic architectural finishes that is used to determine the color and nature of surface finishes at a given point in time. This helps researchers understand the building’s architectural history and how its appearance has changed over time.
Coatings analysis is completed by safely removing a small sample of coating layers from a surface, slicing the coating sample in half, and observing the cross-section of the many coating layers through a high-powered microscope. This gives the opportunity for the observer to see the number and nature of the coatings applied to a surface through time, ideally including the original coating layer at the bottom to the most recent coating layer at the top, and everything between. It also allows the researcher to determine which architectural elements are original to the building and which were added at a later date, depending on if there is the most coatings or the least coatings on an architectural element, respectively. The amount of weathering, degradation, and dirt that has collected on a coated surface can establish a relative application date. For example, a significant amount of weathering or dirt accumulation on top of a layer of coating shows that a period of time has passed before the next layer of coating was applied. Using more in-depth analysis also allows the determination of the presence of certain types of pigments that have known dates of introduction, which can also be a known clue for dating an architectural element. For example, zinc oxide was introduced to paint as a pigment in the mid-19th century and latex as a binder in paint in the 1940s, so the presence of these pigments and binders would date the paint to either after the 1840s or after the 1940s, respectively.
Completing this research gives an understanding of the decorative, architectural, and social history of a site and gives information for appropriate replication of suitable coating finishes.

Why and how PMA completed coatings analysis on Inlow Hall
PMA completed paint analysis on Inlow Hall in order to determine the first color of the windows and to determine how many layers were applied to the cast stone elements of the building. By removing the cast stone coating, PMA was able to determine the cast stone elements of Inlow Hall match the cast stone used to build the Grand Staircase. By determining the historic color of the painted windows, the proposed replacement windows will be able to match in color to what the historic once were, therefore making Inlow Hall look like it once had when it was first constructed. Below is information on each of the coating samples processed from Inlow Hall.

Below are links to more information on coatings analysis and several historic coating analysis research projects from the eastern United States and United Kingdom:
colonialwilliamsburg.org
mountvernon.org
lincolnconservation.co.uk

Blog post written by Jessica Schmitt, PMA Preservation Planner.

AI chat bots skim the web for information on all sorts of subjects, so in a way they allow us to take the pulse of public perception on various issues and topics. Many people have “interviewed” chat bots about current events, creative ideas and, of course, asked questions related to their employment (we all want some peace of mind that AI isn’t taking our jobs…yet). So, here at PMA I (Skyla) decided to “talk” with an AI chat bot on some general, specific, and local topics related to the fields of architecture and historic preservation. Below are the highlights, but first, a bit on how I chose which bot to interview.

The Chat Bot:

Ever since Chat GPT took the spotlight there have been many AI chat bots developed, some with very specific purposes and pricing attached. However, I decided to interview the most well-known free chat bot: Chat GPT, which is owned and developed by OpenAI. Given it is very accessible to the public, the evolution and continued learning of this bot is being advanced by a diverse user pool with a wide range of interests. However, it’s worth noting that it is difficult to tell how much a chat bot knows about its individual users, and how much that creates bias in the conversation. It’s also important to remember that most of these bots have limited knowledge of events after 2021, and are apt to make mistakes or give inaccurate information now and then. Most AI chat bots included disclaimers warning that they should not be used for advisory purposes. Runner-ups to Chat GPT include Google Bard, which is owned by Google and developed by Google AI, and Bing Chat, which is owned by Microsoft and based on OpenAI’s GPT-4.

The Interview:

I was genuinely interested in Chat GPT’s responses to a range of both serious and silly questions. On Friday May 5, 2023 I sat down to conduct my chat bot interview. This is how it went.

*Note: I did have to edit down certain answers for length and redundancy since this chat bot really likes to write five-paragraph essays in response to every question! All italicized text in the following section are Chat GPT’s responses.

First, I wanted to gauge Chat GPT’s “understanding” of historic preservation and its relationship with architecture.

• What is architectural historic preservation?

“Architectural historic preservation refers to the practice of identifying, protecting, and maintaining historic buildings, structures, and other built environments that are considered to be culturally or historically significant. The goal of architectural historic preservation is to ensure that these structures are preserved for future generations to enjoy and appreciate.

The process of architectural historic preservation typically involves researching and documenting the history and significance of a structure, assessing its condition, and developing a plan for its restoration and maintenance. This can involve a range of activities, from basic maintenance and repair to more complex renovation and restoration projects that seek to maintain the integrity of the original design and construction.

Architectural historic preservation is an interdisciplinary field that draws on a range of disciplines, including architecture, engineering, history, archaeology, and cultural anthropology. It is guided by principles of cultural heritage conservation and seeks to balance the preservation of historic structures with the practical needs of modern society.”

• Why should we preserve historic buildings?

“1. Cultural heritage: Historic buildings often serve as tangible reminders of our shared cultural heritage, representing important moments in history and cultural achievements of past generations. By preserving historic buildings, we can better understand and appreciate our shared cultural heritage.

2. Educational opportunities: Historic buildings can provide important educational opportunities, offering insights into the history of architecture, engineering, and construction techniques, as well as the social and cultural contexts in which these buildings were constructed.

3. Economic benefits: Historic buildings can serve as important tourist attractions, generating revenue and supporting local economies. They can also contribute to the unique character and charm of a city or town, attracting businesses, residents, and visitors.

4. Sustainability: The preservation of historic buildings can contribute to sustainability by promoting the reuse of existing structures, reducing the need for new construction, and preserving the embodied energy and materials in historic buildings.

5. Sense of place: Historic buildings can contribute to a sense of place and community identity, providing a connection to the past and a sense of continuity with previous generations.”

• Are historic buildings important?
For this response, the chat bot summarized its previous answer from a list into a paragraph. However, just a few questions into our conversation I was already impressed—Chat GPT gave me a well-rounded birds-eye view of the major goals and benefits of architectural historic preservation, a useful introduction for the uninitiated. Personally, I found the mention of historic preservation as an interdisciplinary field to be obvious but uncanny, considering I wrote my whole terminal project for my HP masters on this topic, but I’m sure I’m just reading into it…

• Is historic preservation sustainable?

“Yes, historic preservation can be a sustainable approach to building and development. By preserving existing buildings and structures, we can reduce the need for new construction and conserve resources. In addition, many historic buildings were built with durable materials and construction techniques that have proven to be long-lasting, making them inherently sustainable.

Furthermore, the restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings can often include sustainable design and construction practices, such as the incorporation of energy-efficient technologies, the use of renewable materials, and the implementation of green infrastructure. These practices can help to reduce the environmental impact of historic buildings while preserving their cultural and historic significance.

Additionally, the preservation of historic buildings can promote sustainable economic development by supporting local businesses and providing jobs in skilled trades and construction. By preserving the character and identity of a place, historic preservation can also contribute to the social and cultural sustainability of a community.

Overall, historic preservation can be a sustainable approach to building and development, promoting the conservation of resources, the use of durable materials and construction techniques, and the incorporation of sustainable design and construction practices.”

This response was not as well rounded or as thorough as I would have hoped based on the bots previous responses summarizing preservation and its importance. I expected some discussion of embodied carbon, or how buildings consume more energy than transportation or industry respectively, and how reusing and improving our existing building stock is more sustainable than producing new “green” buildings. The AI also appears to default to the assumption that all historic buildings are of “durable” materials and construction. Despite my effort to phrase my questions in a simple manner and without bias, the bot does not seem interested in discussing the challenges or cons related to the sustainability of historic buildings, and instead only focuses on the positives. My observation at this point is less about the content of the response and more a criticism of AI chat bots, and how we should remain critical of the way they present information to us. How useful is this kind of non-holistic response in practice or the dissemination of information?

Next, I wanted to gauge general perceptions around social issues and impacts attached to historic preservation. (Yes, some of these questions are worded in a very elementary way, but I was curious how the bot would respond!)

• Is architectural historic preservation good or bad?

“There is no simple answer to whether architectural historic preservation is good or bad, as it depends on various factors and perspectives.

From a cultural heritage perspective, architectural historic preservation is generally regarded as a positive practice, as it helps to preserve and celebrate the built environment of past generations. Historic buildings can provide important educational and cultural resources, contributing to the sense of place and community identity.

From an environmental perspective, architectural historic preservation can also be a positive practice, as it promotes the reuse of existing structures and reduces the need for new construction, which can be resource-intensive and have negative impacts on the environment.

However, from an economic perspective, some argue that architectural historic preservation can be costly and may limit development opportunities. Additionally, there may be challenges associated with balancing the need for preservation with the practical considerations of modern use and occupancy.

Overall, the benefits and drawbacks of architectural historic preservation are context-specific and depend on a range of factors, including the cultural and historic significance of the building, the resources available for preservation and maintenance, and the needs and priorities of the community.”

While this very high-level answer does touch on a few ‘good’ and ‘bad’ notes, I was hoping to force the chat bot into mentioning some of the more nuanced issues within preservation such as accessibility, how it has led to the gentrification of neighborhoods, or how our preservation tools and processes in the United States are often discriminatory towards minority groups and people of color. With my next, more direct, question I was able to eek out a brief mention of these issues, but again, herein lies an issue with AI bots—they may be able to help us learn about new subjects, but unless we ask the right (hard) questions, we may not get the full picture.

The following response is paraphrased as many of the talking points established by the bot were becoming redundant.

• Does historic preservation hurt or help people?

“…historic preservation can also hurt people if it limits development opportunities or creates financial burdens for property owners. In some cases, preservation efforts may also perpetuate problematic aspects of the past, such as historic patterns of inequality or discrimination.

Moreover, the preservation of historic buildings may also have broader social and economic impacts, such as contributing to gentrification or displacement of residents, which can have negative consequences for low-income and marginalized communities.”

• Is it okay to demolish a historic building?

“Whether it is okay to demolish a historic building depends on a range of factors, including the cultural and historic significance of the building, the condition of the structure, and the needs and priorities of the community.

In some cases, it may be necessary to demolish a historic building due to safety concerns, such as when the building is structurally unsound and poses a risk to public health and safety. However, in many cases, the demolition of historic buildings is a controversial issue, as it can result in the loss of important cultural and historic resources and erode the character and identity of a place.

Before deciding to demolish a historic building, it is important to consider alternatives, such as rehabilitation or adaptive reuse. Rehabilitation involves repairing and restoring a building to its original condition, while adaptive reuse involves converting a historic building to a new use while preserving its historic features and character.

Moreover, it is important to engage in a community-wide conversation about the preservation of historic buildings, as the decision to demolish a historic building can have significant cultural, economic, and environmental impacts on the community. Community input can help to ensure that the needs and priorities of all stakeholders are taken into account and that the decision reflects the values and aspirations of the community.”

Having finally forced the chat bot to mention some tougher issues, I was hoping to see those topics resurface with more depth in the response to this question, but to no avail. Don’t even get me started on the semantics of rehabilitation, preservation, adaptive reuse, and all the other terminology that gets tossed around and confused—you can check out our “Practical Guide to Preservation Terminology ” blog for a deep dive on that discussion!

Having tackled some tough high-level questions, I was interested in getting a more local perspective, so I wanted to ask a few Portland-specific questions. However, that proved to be difficult, and Chat GPT’s responses were a mixture of accurate national history that happens to be locally applicable, and downright wrong information pertaining to PDX.

For instance, when asked how historic preservation has shaped the City of Portland, Oregon, the bot first mentioned that “Portland has a rich architectural history, with a diverse array of architectural styles and building types that reflect the city’s growth and development over time. In the 1960s and 1970s, many historic buildings in Portland were threatened with demolition due to urban renewal and highway construction projects.” This response is vague, and not technically incorrect, albeit not very informative either. However, Chat GPT then went on to boldly claim that Pioneer Courthouse Square and the Pearl District are historic districts, which is obviously untrue, although someone unfamiliar with Portland’s preservation landscape probably wouldn’t know that. After I corrected the bot, it conceded that these are not designated districts, but that they still have historic significance. Those of us in preservation know that distinction is critical and has real-world implications, but the AI has not yet gleaned this type of insight.

Selfishly, I also wanted to know whether Chat GPT would name PMA as a leader in historic preservation in Portland. Despite several attempts, the bot would only give me a smattering of seemingly random architecture firms, most of them national or international that happen to have a PNW office, but not necessarily preservation services. Of course this was disappointing considering PMA has been around for 20 years this year (woohoo!), but I wasn’t surprised given the previous inaccuracies and lack of specific information provided by the AI. I even asked about PMA directly, and the bot fabricated multiple timelines, projects, and awards for our firm, none of which was remotely correct but mildly entertaining (I wish I actually did get to work on some of the buildings it claimed we did!)

Before wrapping up, I wanted to do a quick lightning round of questions to see if AI is coming for my job (or yours) anytime soon (it doesn’t know where I work, so I think I’m safe for now!) I’ll just leave these here for those interested in skimming Chat GPT’s stab at being a preservationist.

• How do I know if a building is historic?

“Determining whether a building is historic typically involves considering a number of different factors, such as its age, architectural style, significance to local history or culture, and whether it is listed on a historic register or has been designated as a historic landmark.

Here are some general guidelines that can help you determine if a building is historic:

1. Age: Historic buildings are typically older than 50 years, although this can vary depending on the context and location.

2. Architectural Style: Historic buildings often reflect a particular architectural style that was popular during a specific period. For example, Victorian, Art Deco, and Mid-Century Modern are all styles that are commonly associated with historic architecture.

3. Significance: Historic buildings may have played a significant role in the history or culture of the local community, or have been associated with important individuals or events.

4. Historic Register: Historic buildings may be listed on a national, state, or local historic register, which recognizes their cultural, architectural, or historical significance.

If you are unsure whether a building is historic, you can check with your local historical society, preservation organization, or government agency that oversees historic preservation. They may be able to provide more information on the building’s history and significance, and whether it is considered to be historic.”

• How can I preserve a historic building?

“Preserving a historic building requires a combination of maintenance, repair, and restoration work to ensure that the building’s historic fabric and character are maintained. Here are some general steps to follow when preserving a historic building:

1. Conduct a historic assessment: Before beginning any preservation work, it is important to conduct a thorough assessment of the building’s historic fabric, including its architectural features, building materials, and any existing damage or deterioration.

2. Develop a preservation plan: Based on the results of the historic assessment, develop a comprehensive preservation plan that outlines the scope of work, timeline, and budget for the project.

3. Conduct regular maintenance: Regular maintenance is essential to prevent deterioration and damage to historic buildings. This may include tasks such as cleaning gutters, repairing leaks, and sealing cracks.

4. Repair damage: When damage occurs to historic fabric, it is important to repair it using materials and techniques that are compatible with the original construction. This may include repairing masonry, replacing damaged woodwork, or patching plaster.

5. Restore missing or deteriorated elements: In some cases, historic elements may be missing or deteriorated beyond repair. In these cases, it may be necessary to restore the element using new materials that are compatible with the original construction.

6. Use appropriate materials: When working on historic buildings, it is important to use materials that are appropriate for the building’s age and style. This may include using traditional building materials such as lime mortar or wooden shingles.

7. Work with preservation professionals: It is important to work with professionals who are experienced in historic preservation, including architects, engineers, and contractors. They can provide guidance and expertise to ensure that preservation work is done appropriately and effectively.

Preserving a historic building requires ongoing effort and attention, but the rewards are great in terms of preserving the character and history of the built environment.”

• Who can help me preserve a historic building?

“There are several professionals who can assist with the preservation of a historic building:

1. Historic preservation architects: These professionals specialize in the preservation and restoration of historic buildings. They can assist with a wide range of services, including historic assessments, preservation planning, and construction management.

2. Structural engineers: Structural engineers can provide guidance on preserving the structural integrity of historic buildings, as well as ensuring that any restoration work is done safely and effectively.

3. General contractors: Contractors who specialize in historic preservation can provide a range of services, from general maintenance and repair to full-scale restoration work.

4. Historic preservation organizations: Local and national historic preservation organizations can provide guidance and resources for preserving historic buildings, as well as funding opportunities for preservation projects.

5. Government agencies: State and local government agencies may have programs in place to support historic preservation, including grants, tax incentives, and regulatory guidance.

When seeking assistance with the preservation of a historic building, it is important to work with professionals who have experience and expertise in historic preservation. They can help ensure that preservation work is done appropriately and effectively, while preserving the character and history of the building.”

• How can I safely clean historic masonry?

“Cleaning historic masonry requires special care and attention to ensure that the materials and surfaces are not damaged in the process. Here are some general steps to follow when cleaning historic masonry:

1. Determine the type of masonry: Different types of masonry, such as brick, stone, or stucco, may require different cleaning methods and products.

2. Test a small area: Before cleaning the entire surface, test a small area to ensure that the cleaning method and product will not damage the masonry.

3. Use gentle cleaning methods: Avoid using abrasive or harsh cleaning methods that can damage the masonry. Instead, use gentle methods such as water, low-pressure washing, or a soft-bristled brush.

4. Use appropriate cleaning products: Choose cleaning products that are specifically designed for historic masonry and that will not damage the surface. Avoid using bleach, acids, or other harsh chemicals.

5. Protect surrounding areas: When cleaning masonry, be sure to protect surrounding areas, such as landscaping or other surfaces, from the cleaning products and runoff.

6. Work from the bottom up: When cleaning vertical surfaces, work from the bottom up to prevent streaking and ensure that the cleaning solution is evenly distributed.

7. Rinse thoroughly: After cleaning, rinse the surface thoroughly with water to remove any remaining cleaning solution.

It is also recommended to consult with a professional historic preservationist or masonry restoration expert before attempting to clean historic masonry, as they can provide specific guidance and recommendations based on the unique characteristics of the building and its materials.”

• Should I paint historic brick?

“Whether or not to paint historic brick is a contentious issue within the preservation community. In general, it is recommended to avoid painting historic brick whenever possible, as painting can obscure the brick’s texture and historic character, and may even damage the brick over time.

However, there are some circumstances where painting historic brick may be necessary or desirable. For example, if the brick is severely damaged or discolored and cannot be restored through other means, painting may be a viable option. Additionally, in some cases, painting may be used to match the appearance of surrounding buildings or to unify a façade that has been altered over time.

Before deciding to paint historic brick, it is important to consult with a professional historic preservationist or architectural conservator. They can provide guidance on the appropriateness of painting in a specific context, and recommend appropriate paint types and application methods to ensure that the historic fabric of the building is preserved.”

• What should everybody know about architecture and historic preservation?

“Here are a few things that everybody should know about architecture and historic preservation:

1. Historic preservation is not just about saving old buildings; it is also about preserving our cultural heritage and the stories of the people who lived and worked in those buildings.

2. Architecture and historic preservation are not just for the wealthy; they are important for communities of all income levels and backgrounds.

3. The principles of historic preservation can be applied to modern architecture and design, helping to create buildings and spaces that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

4. Preservation is not just about keeping buildings in their original state; it can also involve adapting and reusing them to meet the needs of modern society.

5. Preserving historic buildings and neighborhoods can have economic benefits, including increased property values and tourism revenue.

6. Architects and designers play a critical role in historic preservation, using their knowledge and skills to help communities preserve and adapt their built heritage for future generations.

7. Preservation is a collaborative effort that involves many different stakeholders, including property owners, government agencies, community organizations, and preservation professionals.

Historic preservation is a dynamic field that is constantly evolving, with new technologies, materials, and approaches emerging all the time.”

• How can AI be used in historic preservation?

“Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to be used in several ways for historic preservation. Here are some examples:

1. Digital documentation: AI can be used to create digital 3D models of historic buildings, which can be used for documentation, analysis, and visualization purposes. These models can be used to detect changes in the building over time and to help with restoration efforts.

2. Building monitoring: AI can be used to monitor the condition of historic buildings in real-time. Sensors and cameras can be installed to capture data on the building’s structural integrity, temperature, humidity, and other factors. This data can then be analyzed to detect potential issues before they become major problems.

3. Historical research: AI can be used to analyze historical documents and data to uncover new insights about historic buildings and their significance. For example, AI can be used to analyze newspaper articles, photographs, and other historical records to gain a deeper understanding of the building’s history.

4. Conservation and restoration: AI can be used to assist with the conservation and restoration of historic buildings. For example, AI can be used to analyze paint samples to determine the original colors of a building, or to analyze photographs to identify changes to the building over time.

Overall, AI has the potential to be a powerful tool in historic preservation. By using AI to analyze data and monitor historic buildings, preservationists can gain a deeper understanding of the building’s history and make informed decisions about how to preserve it for future generations.”

• How can AI be used in architecture?

“Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in architecture in several ways. Here are a few examples:

1. Design optimization: AI can be used to optimize the design of buildings by analyzing data on factors such as energy efficiency, structural integrity, and aesthetics. This can lead to more efficient and sustainable building designs.

2. Energy modeling: AI can be used to create energy models of buildings, which can be used to predict energy usage and identify opportunities for energy savings. This can help architects design buildings that are more energy-efficient and reduce their environmental impact.

3. Generative design: AI can be used to generate new design ideas and solutions. By inputting certain parameters, such as the site conditions and client requirements, AI algorithms can generate multiple design options that meet those criteria. This can help architects explore a wider range of design possibilities and find innovative solutions.

4. Construction management: AI can be used to monitor construction sites and manage the construction process. For example, AI can be used to track progress, monitor safety, and identify potential issues before they become major problems.

5. Facility management: AI can be used to manage buildings after they are constructed. For example, AI can be used to monitor building systems such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting to optimize energy usage and reduce maintenance costs.

Overall, AI has the potential to revolutionize the field of architecture by enabling architects to design more efficient, sustainable, and innovative buildings.”

The answers compiled by the bot about how to tell if a building is historic, who to consult, and the general preservation process are generally correct. Of course, the recommendation to chat with a professional before doing any work is always good advice (and we’re here if you have questions!) I am a little skeptical as to AI’s current ability to perform some of the tasks it outlined in making a case for its usefulness within the architecture and historic preservation industries, but that may be because we have yet to see all these possibilities tested in wide scale practice. Luckily, human intervention will always be a requirement in preservation, as robots (currently) lack an appreciation for culture or capacity for sentimentalism, nostalgia, or intangible value.

If you have made it this far, congratulations! This blog is a long one, and it’s been an interesting ride. Since you’ve made it this far, I’ll let you in on a little secret: That social media post that sent you here was written by Chat GPT too!

In Conclusion

I wasn’t quite sure how this conversation would go, and since this wasn’t a particularly scientific experiment, I was prepared to go off script. I’ll also admit some of my questions were a bit cheeky! However, in general I was impressed with Chat GPT’s responses and the AI’s ability to summarize a wide range of issues, albeit the answers were sometimes vague or redundant. My general impression is that a read-through of these questions and answers would give the average person a pretty good idea of the major focal points and issues surrounding architectural historic preservation. But the greater takeaway, in my opinion, is to continue to be critical of this powerful technology, especially when you are asking questions about topics you do not have enough knowledge of to discern fact from AI fiction.

Blog post written by Skyla Leavitt, PMA Associate.

Single-use, purpose-built older structures are notoriously difficulty to renovate for a new use. Older church structures, specifically, are some of the most difficult to convert.

As the financial incomes and patrons of congregations around the world continue to decline, maintaining and repairing a church building specifically a historic one become significant burdens. Many churches are active for only a handful of hours, one or two days a week. The limited use is a colossal waste of space, structure, and energy.

Within the United States, there has been a substantial drop in religious construction in the Pacific region (CA, OR, WA, AK, and HI). In 2013, religious construction was only 0.8 percent of the nonresidential sector in this region. Ten years ago, it was four times that * Peak construction of new buildings occurred in the early 20th Century and has declined ever since.

To convert a church from religious use to a new use, church owners must solve several hurdles from code restrictions to spatial relationships that impede the conversion process. Most religious structures are code classified as non-conforming use within residential zoned areas so any renovation to a new use is likely to need a zoning appeal as a first step. Major renovations entail a myriad of building code upgrades substantially contributing to renovation costs. Everything from energy, fire & life safety, structural, and universal access upgrades become part of the redesign process.

Apart from private residences, the reuse options take advantage of ‘Group occupancy’ classification to reduce the code mandated upgrades. A global search of renovated religious buildings provides successful conversion examples into private residences, auditoriums, library, breweries, businesses, and community centers.

Photo of Monmouth Evangelical Church, Monmouth Oregon.

In Monmouth, Oregon, PMA is assisting the City of Monmouth and the Monmouth Evangelical Church to study potential additional uses within the church while maintaining the religious function and congregational spaces. Situated across from the entry to Western Oregon University, the Monmouth Evangelical Church is a a prime location to create spaces for student and University activities. PMA is providing options that evaluate the addition of an exterior, internally operated, or independently owned, Coffee shop. Studies to convert the under-utilized basement into event space or indoor food venues supporting the thriving on-site food stalls. The main hall is optimal for creating potential performance space with projection and sound occurring on an existing mezzanine level. All the new uses will require an increase in restroom facilities and other support infrastructure.

Current lower level spaceRendering of possible use of lower level space

There are financial incentives available for church conversions including federal Historic Tax Credits, the Oregon Special Assessment program for property tax paying entities. There are limited funds available from competitive grant sources and some programming and community use may find funding through Foundations and Trust organizations.

Religious structures are beautiful spaces and their conversion maintains the history, is sustainable, and helps achieve carbon neutral goals.

* Tobin Grant, Religious News Service, December 8, 2014

Blog post written by Peter Meijer, PMA Principal and Founder.

Designed by John V. Bennes of Bennes and Herzog, Portland, the historic Inlow Hall on the campus of Eastern Oregon University was completed in 1929. The building first opened as the Administration Building for the State Normal School, changing to the Eastern Oregon College of Education in 1939, and eventually becoming Eastern Oregon University in 1997. Inlow Hall was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.

North elevation of Inlow Hall, 1929, Eastern Oregon University Library Digital Archives

A modern adaptation to Italian Renaissance palatial architecture, Inlow Hall follows the design concept of a renaissance palace on a hill. The building is constructed of reinforced concrete and finished in stucco, featuring cast stone details, granite entrance steps, and a terracotta roof.

South elevation of Inlow Hall, 1930, Eastern Oregon University Library Digital Archives

Currently, PMA is part of a team completing a rehabilitation project on Inlow Hall. Part of the project includes updating the terracotta roof tiling, which at present has exceeded its useful life. PMA keeps sustainability in mind at the office and on projects. As part of aligning PMA’s sustainability efforts with the work we produce, PMA is working to minimize waste on this project by saving the terracotta tiles that can be salvaged for future use. Our goal is for these tiles to be sent to a regional company that specializes in salvaging building materials for companies or private individuals to use on their future projects.

Photo of current Inlow Hall terracotta conditions by PMA, April 2022

Our office holds a third-party sustainability certification from the City of Portland’s Sustainability at Work division. We received the highest level of certification, Gold Certified Green Business. As part of our promise to sustainability, PMA is passionate about enhancing properties that already exist, ranging from historic to existing built infrastructure. We focus on projects that re-use, rehabilitate, recycle, and advocate for historic preservation. By working with existing materials and finding ways to reuse or recycle them, this saves resources from going straight to the landfill and reduces the loss of embodied energy. Embodied energy is the sum of all the energy required to produce a product, considered as if that energy was incorporated in the product itself. The embodied energy concept can be useful in determining the effectiveness of energy-producing or energy saving materials, and whether or not a product contributes to global warming.

Here are 10 steps to reducing embodied energy:
1. Reuse buildings instead of constructing new ones.
2. Specify low-carbon concrete mixes.
3. Limit carbon-intensive materials.
4. Choose lower carbon alternatives.
5. Choose carbon sequestering materials.
6. Reuse materials.
7. Use high-recycled content materials.
8. Maximize structure efficiency.
9. Use fewer finish materials.
10. Minimize waste.

More on these steps and how to reduce embodied energy can be found here

Blog post written by Jessica Schmitt, PMA Preservation Planner.