Tag Archives: rehabilitation

A Practical Guide to Preservation Terminology

Lovejoy Pavillion 001

There are some instances when the English language enjoys sparking debate, confusion, and often apathy, look no further than the “10 items or less” vs. “10 items or fewer” conversation around the grocery check-out aisle. In the preservation field, we have our own niche conversation – the difference between the terms: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Like with grocery store grammar, these four preservation terms hold undoubtedly different definitions and should be used correctly, but even when used incorrectly, we all still understand what you mean.

Let’s take a second a clarify what these four words do mean. As a preservationist, I turn to the source for these terms, the United States Department of the Interior.

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Preservation, keeping a building at a particular moment in time.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Restoration, pin points a time in the building’s history and is accurate to only that time.

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Reconstruction, recreates missing parts of a property through interpretation with plenty of research to back-up the choices.
Mercy Corps North Facade (Viewing Southeast)
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
I’ve found that the most common error is using preservation or restoration when the person almost always means rehabilitation. For me, much of my work focuses on rehabilitation, especially when a project seeks funding through local, state, or federal incentives like Historic Tax Credits. Aside from the definitions above, the most defining difference between preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation comes down to creative license.

When it comes to creativity and executing an artistic or architectural vision, rehabilitation is essentially synonymous with adaptive-reuse or repositioning. Rehabilitation, retains character but acknowledges a need for alterations in order to keep the property in use. When a building that was historically a school but is converted into a hotel or an office building becomes apartments, that’s rehabilitation. Even improving an existing use can be a rehabilitation project.

In the end, I like to associate each of these terms with what they will mean for their respective scope of work on a project. As mentioned, rehabilitation means a creative process that balances the historic character with modern needs. Preservation is essentially thoughtful maintenance so that the existing resource does not get wholly improved, but also is prevented from falling apart. Restoration and reconstruction are the most technically and scientifically involved requiring sufficient historic research and materials knowledge to justify the choices of retaining or rebuilding a resource. Unfortunately I don’t know of any mnemonic devise or other short cut to help clarify these four words, but hopefully a better understanding of their meaning will lead to fewer instances of their misuse.

Written by Tricia Forsi, Preservation Planner

Assessing a Historic House in Springfield, Oregon

Owning, maintaining, and providing active use within a single family settlement era house is not a typical mission for a public parks agency. One such property is the Reynold & Eva Briggs House located in the northeast corner of the Dorris Ranch Living History Farm, in Springfield, Oregon, currently stewarded by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District (WPRD). Compounding the unusual situation is that the area is a historic site, a working farm, and a public park. In addition the property’s history, age, material, and conditions of the house add further complexity to the stewardship role. In order to guide the WPRD with long-range decisions regarding the Briggs House, the District sought an up to date exterior and interior condition assessment and potential rehabilitation options in support of current and future park programming needs, including as a source of income derived from continued residential use. The Briggs House has not been occupied since its last resident left in 2009.
Briggs-House

THE ASSESSMENT
The property, The Dorris Ranch Living History Farm, was listed as a National Register of Historic Places Historic District on June 22, 1988. While the Briggs House is located on the ranch property, it sits outside the boundaries of the historic district.

As researched by University of Oregon historic preservation students, the settlement era house is one of the five oldest houses in the Springfield area and one of the city’s few remaining examples of box construction from the Homestead era. The oldest portion of the house—the two-story volume and its eastern wing—was originally constructed by George Thurston in 1872, and later served as the home of caretakers Reynold and Eva Briggs. Once vernacular in the Willamette Valley, the house exhibits a Gothic-influenced upright-and-wing style of construction and was expanded in the 1890’s to accommodate the changing needs of its residents.

Typical of early homestead sites, the Briggs House was constructed without a foundation. The original substructure that continues to support the house consists of partially hewn wood posts on stone piers set directly on the ground surface. Utilizing the box-construction method, 1-inch by 11-inch boards were set vertically and connected to the 7-inch by 9-inch sill plate and ledger plate above the posts to create a “box” form without the use of other framing members. Two-inch by 4-inch roof rafters were then set above the top ledger plates. Floor joists, the original board-and-battens wall siding, and roof panels were added to the house after its basic skeletal structure had been completed. The original wall siding was replaced with weatherboards at an unknown date. Portions of this siding were later replaced with shiplap in the 1890’s, and the entire exterior was later covered with T-111 siding in the 1970’s.
Briggs-House

REHABILITATION CHALLENGES
After discussing the main program activities that take place on Dorris Ranch with Willamalane Parks and Recreation District staff, PMA recognized the primary challenge to any rehabilitation options was the balance between maintaining the historic character of the house and meeting all the code requirements mandated by a rehabilitation, including public access, universal access, and mechanical, electrical, energy, and plumbing upgrades. Previous studies undertaken by Restore Oregon on similar settlement era houses indicated that a balance must be reached between preserving the essence of the house while changing and modifying other portions of the house and property to achieve programming needs. Complicating the Briggs House options are siting of the house within an active area of the park, the two story volume, the lack of an adequate structural foundation, and accommodating large classroom needs within original tiny floor plans. Every room of the historic property has an established spatial function and are tiny in size. Any rehabilitation option must consider that all rooms in the house would be “flexible” and be used as needed for a variety of purposes.

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF HISTORIC STATUS
Willamalane Parks and Recreation District currently stewards the Briggs House as a historic property by maintaining and protecting the property from encroachment by nature, animal and pest infestation, and unsafe use by park visitors. Inclusion of the property within the district as a contributing resource has both pro and con impacts. Inclusion within an expanded boundary of the current National Register Dorris Ranch Historic District could prove beneficial in finding financial sources to help with a rehabilitation although the available funds are likely insignificant when evaluated against the full cost required to upgrade the Briggs house to a public structure. On the other hand, including the property in the district may prove problematic for WPRD as it may limit, or make more difficult, viable and creative rehabilitation options that would not be approved by the local jurisdiction having authority.
Briggs-House

It is generally agreed that house museums (properties that are preserved as homes to be visited by the public) are not financially prudent uses to retain historic properties. Recent studies conclude that a compromise must occur between balancing original historic character with up to date and flexible programming space to achieve viable long-term solutions for unique homestead-era properties.

Written By Marion Rosas / Designer and Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal

Post Modern Building Materials Part One

Advances in science and material properties have always played a role in the development of building products. Postmodernism fueled the advent of several new building materials including Glass Reinforced Polyester (James Stirling, Olivetti Training Center, c.1972), Insulated Exterior Metal Panel Systems (Richard Meier, Bronx Development Center, c.1979), Dupont’s Fabric Tensile Structures (University of Florida Gainesville, O’Connell Center, c.1980), polycarbonate sheets (Kalwall, et.al.), pre-fabricated brick panel systems, and many other new construction technologies.

Richard Meier, Bronx Development Center, 1977

Post Modern Building Materials and Life-Cycle
Like any new technology or building material, the life span of postmodern materials is now known but there is a lack of case studies and journalistic papers describing the failure mechanisms, and more importantly, how to repair, retain, or preserve the exterior materials. On one level there is an inherent impermanence of the original materials based on a default decision making process that limited a building’s longevity to a twenty-five (25) year life-cycle. On another level, the façade of the Postmodern building incorporates building systems or individual components that are neither produced nor assembled currently in similar manners due to improvements in technology and building envelope science. In either case, the process and method of building envelope repair could dramatically or minimally impact the exterior character of Postmodern structures.

Aldo Rossi, Theatro Delmondo, Venice 1982

There are some Postmodern structures, despite the polarizing opinions regarding the aesthetic values, that are iconographic examples of the high-end of Postmodern style. Included with those structures named above, are the Portland Building (Michael Graves, c. 1984), Piazza d’Italia (Charles Moore, 1982), and Theatro Delmondo, (Aldo Rossi, Venice 1982) to name a few. Rossi’s Theatro Delmondo poses an even more challenging theoretical debate as to whether or not to preserve or repair the structure since the theater was built as a floating temporary stage set.

Rehabilitation and Postmodern materials
The rehabilitation of Postmodern materials is compounded by the lack of physical or chemical stability in the original product (e.g. color fading or material breakdown by UV light); changing urban context and surrounding development; inadequate original construction means and methods, and lack of precedence – Postmodern buildings are just now reaching the end of their design life-cycle. Proposals to improve envelope performance are challenged in finding products that will improve performance and retain the aesthetics of a Postmodern building. Given these challenges, is the proper repair, rehabilitation, or conservation of Postmodern structures to retain the appearance of insubstantial material installed incorrectly? Or should any new work, often entailing proposals for replacing the building facades, to discount the design appearance and fix the problems regardless of the impact.

ZGF, Koin Center, 1982

Moving forward, there are precedents set by the early and current challenges associated with mid-century modern structures that can be followed. For example, circa 1960 glass curtain wall upgrades have created methods to retain the exterior appearance while upgrading the thermal efficiency of the system or conversely, left the existing original curtain wall in place and upgrade the mechanical system and distribution system as both more cost effective and more energy efficient over the life of the building. The solutions towards postmodern materials will similarly be led by research, initiative, and innovation. Engaging the manufactures in the dialogue is essential, particularly when replacing a failed product is critical to retaining the building design character.

james-stirling-olivetti-training-center-materials

James Stirling, Olivetti Training Center, 1972

Unique Challenges
There are unique challenges with Postmodern buildings, but as is the case with all new materials and systems, developing a strategy of research, methodology, and documentation will result in extending the life-cycle of these provocative structures.

Portland Building

Written by Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal