Navigating History: Balancing Educational Needs, Project Budgets, and Heritage Within Historic Campuses
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•453 views
It can be challenging to balance competing priorities when completing projects on historic campuses. An educational planner and an architect who focuses on historic preservation use case studies to demonstrate how two different 100-year-old, multi-building campuses with distinctive architectural styles have navigated this challenge. Presented at EDspaces 2017 and LearningSCAPES 2017, this presentation shares strategies for balancing historic integrity with a school’s educational mission, addressing difficult demolition decisions, and working within public funding constraints, as well as how strategies may differ between new construction and renovation/addition projects and between eligible and listed properties. Julie Walleisa, AIA, LEED AP, ALEP is a Principal at Dekker/Perich/Sabatini who specializes in early childhood, K-12, and higher education design. Co-presenter Keri Stevenson, AIA is an architect at D/P/S with experience in historic preservation and architectural conservation.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Navigating History: Balancing Educational Needs, Project Budgets, and Heritage Within Historic Campuses
Similar to Navigating History: Balancing Educational Needs, Project Budgets, and Heritage Within Historic Campuses (20)
More from Dekker/Perich/Sabatini
More from Dekker/Perich/Sabatini (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Navigating History: Balancing Educational Needs, Project Budgets, and Heritage Within Historic Campuses
- 2. • Principal/Architect at Dekker/Perich/Sabatini • Accredited Learning Environment Planner (ALEP) • Focus on K-12 programming and design • Masterplans and design projects on historic campuses • Architect at Dekker/Perich/Sabatini • Background in historic preservation and architectural conservation • Focus on K-12 schools and government agency facilities with historic character
- 6. Education has changed a lot over the past 125 years Deaf education has been completely transformed
- 7. Marian Meyer. “A Century of Progress: History of the New Mexico School for the Deaf.” Printing Shoemaking
- 8. Marian Meyer. “A Century of Progress: History of the New Mexico School for the Deaf.”
- 9. Marian Meyer. “A Century of Progress.”
- 12. CC BY-SA 3.0 JuliusR (RoterHesse@gmx.net), via Wikimedia Commons Architectural Styles of America and Europe Einar Einarsson Kvaran CC BY-SA 3.0, https://architecturestyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/copy-of-img_5894.jpg Su Casa magazine Old House online Feb 18, 2013
- 15. National Register of Historic Places in Santa Fe CountyNational Register of Historic Places in Santa Fe County National Register of Historic Places in Santa Fe CountyNational Register of Historic Places in Santa Fe County Hospital Connor Hall Superintendent’s Residence Dillon Hall
- 16. NMSD Dillon Hall, SSWA
- 17. NMSD Dillon Hall, SSWA http://www.nmsd.k12.nm.us/ Modernized classrooms
- 18. NMSD Dillon Hall, SSWA http://www.nmsd.k12.nm.us/ Protected and restored character of public spaces
- 19. NMSD Dillon Hall, SSWA http://www.nmsd.k12.nm.us/ Refurbished original windows Added storm windows Stucco & roofing
- 20. Original Connor Hall, 1928 Sideview of Connor Hall, 2009 Marian Meyer. “A Century of Progress: History of the New Mexico School for the Deaf.”
- 21. Original 1928 Building2010 Addition NMSD Connor Hall, SSWAhttp://www.nmsd.k12.nm.us/ Addition on back/side of building
- 22. NMSD Connor Hall, SSWAhttp://www.nmsd.k12.nm.us/ Clear distinction between old and new
- 23. Rear Basement Vestibule Addition Side Elevator & Vestibule Addition
- 24. Delgado Hall in 2014 Original Delgado Hall, 1913 Marian Meyer, “A Century of Progress : History of the New Mexico School for the Deaf.”
- 26. Before After
- 27. Marian Meyer, “A Century of Progress : History of the New Mexico School for the Deaf.”
- 40. Trade training Short-term placements SocializationAcademics Individualized learning Long term residence on campus Least restrictive environment Over 100 years of change
- 41. Beadwork, broom-making, piano tuning, agriculture, furniture making, chair caning, rugmaking, hammock making, etc.
- 42. • English and Braille starting in 1st grade, arithmetic starting in 3rd grade • Longer class periods, still issues with student ratio and age gap • Talking books • Little socialization, segregated by gender
- 43. Life skills – dressing, grooming, eating Growth in athletics, music, and extracurricular programs – scouts, garden club, square dancing, theater Transition from industrial training to shop classes (GETTING MORE CONNECTED TO WORLD THROUGH RADIO AND TV TECHNOLOGY)
- 47. • From harsh or dim lighting to indirect, dimmable LED lighting • From glossy VCT to matte flooring • From curtains or blinds to roller shades • From symmetry or unhelpful patterns to sensory landmarking
- 48. Example image from another school
- 49. Example image from another school
- 57. Map of registered buildings
- 58. Ditzler Auditorium Recreation Center Central Receiving InfirmaryTapia
- 60. Original Replacement Original Replacement
- 61. Original
- 62. Replacement
- 63. Barbara McDonald, “Weavers of a Tapestry of Time: 1903 to 2003 One Hundred Years at the New Mexico School for The Visually Handicapped.”
- 64. Before After
- 67. Barbara McDonald, “Weavers of a Tapestry of Time.”
- 68. 1959 Practical Arts building
- 69. 1957 San Andres building
- 70. 1978 Bert Reeves building
- 73. 3D model 3D print
- 75. Demolish buildings that don’t meet functional needs Demolish buildings even if registered, cherished, or relatively recent Demolish mid-century additions in order to keep original footprint Demolish 50s-70s buildings Most recent but holding up well materially Less valued /not consistent with style Didn’t consider demolishing anything on register
- 76. Add small accessibility or functional additions Pueblo style massing enables “infill” additions New buildings can deviate from historic style Add buildings, not additions Symmetrical style is difficult to add on to New buildings should be a modern interpretation of historic style
- 77. Window restoration only at registered buildings with original windows Willing to make tradeoffs to be afford top priorities Window replacement rather than restoration Lookalike roofing materials Deferred abatement may cost more later
- 78. Efficient replacement windows Create a central plant External insulation as part of stucco system Efficient replacement windows Abandon inefficient central plant Interior wall furrouts for insulation
- 79. New museum Salvage beams and light fixtures for reuse Honor cherished elements Incorporate interpretive signage Maintain archival information Digital capture of mural Students (not campus) are the legacy
- 80. •There is no “right” decision •Investigate campus history •Work with historic preservation staff •Be realistic about budget and priorities •Embrace criticism •Honor campus culture
Editor's Notes
- Thank you for joining us for this talk on Navigating History.
- My name is Julie Walleisa. I am a Principal at Dekker/Perich/Sabatini, and an architect and Accredited Learning Environment Planner or ALEP. I focus mainly on K-12 school design, and in the past 5-10 years have had the opportunity to work on several projects with a couple of repeat clients trying to balance their educational needs and budget constraints with the realities of a historic campus. (Keri)
- Why are we talking about this? Half of the school buildings in use in the US are over 50 years old, so many districts are wrestling with competing demands… All schools face pressures relating to budget, enrollment, and technology changes – but on a historic campus, there are added pressures about historic legacy, identity, and bigger changes in educational mission. We’re going to use 2 case studies to look at how 2 different 100 year old, multi-building campuses with distinctive architectural styles have navigated this challenge.
- The first example is the NM school for the deaf, or NMSD, which is actually the oldest school in the state. It’s campus has been operated continuously since 1891, so it has seen a huge evolution over time…
- NMSD differs from typical school districts in a couple of key ways. It serves deaf students statewide, so it’s enrollment and space needs aren’t tied to local population changes. As a statewide, constitutionally created school, NMSD can’t raise funds from local bond elections the way many districts do, so they have had to seek capital funding from several different agencies. As a residential school with students on campus 6 days a week, NMSD has needs for student housing and recreation that don’t exist at most K-12 schools. NMSD may have the strongest alumni ties of any K-12 school I’ve worked with, because the campus was each students’ home for years.
- While all education has undergone changes over the past 125 years, deaf education has been completely transformed. Nothing brings that change home like going through old drawings of the campus and seeing it referred to as “asylum for the deaf and dumb” in the early decades of its existence.
- From 1900-1930s, NMSD had a strong manual arts focus. Started with printing, shoe-making, and carpentry. Girls were taught sewing, cooking, laundry, and general housekeeping. The growth of campus facilities created opportunities for students to learn animal husbandry, dairy work, and tending orchards, and how to work in a bakery, barber shop, or beauty shop. At the same time, students were graduating with only minimal communication skills.
- By the 1950s-60s there was concern about manual jobs being lost to automation, and the need to prepare students for more advanced training. This was the start of a stronger focus on “total education” and encouraging students to use all communication methods. The bakery, dairy barn, and shoe shop phased out. And more focus given to literacy and academics and culture, with growth of programs like choir and theater.
- Best practices for deaf-friendly design have also changed to support signed communication in classrooms and other spaces. Modern classrooms for the deaf provide seating in the round with good lighting and acoustics to support signed communication. The growth of sign usage has also impacted everything some sidewalk widths to technology like videophones and visual notification systems. From an educational point of view, this transformation has been amazing. From a facilities point of view, it can be very challenging to reconcile today’s needs with a campus of historic buildings.
- So, I’m going to talk a little about the physical context of the campus, and a little about the architectural style and significance of the buildings here. New Mexico School for the Deaf was founded in 1885 by a gentleman by the name of Lars Larson, along with his wife, Belle, and it was officially established by legislature in 1887. Larson first ran the school basically out of his house, but the school was able to acquire some land in 1891, and the campus started to slowly build up from there. So as you can see, it was just a few scattered buildings at first, and then a push as the school started to grow, and big push around the 1930s from some PWA projects, some scattered demolition, another big push at the turn of the century, and more recently, another phase of demolition as the school was required to cull some square footage. And through this whole evolution, you can see the school really built up a presence along this main road, Cerrillos Road, to the south. That’s really the public face of the school, along Cerrillos and St. Francis, which are two of the main roads in Santa Fe. And all this along here to the north is primarily residential, so the school really has a presence in Santa Fe, it’s very visible on those two sides.
- This is a view of the school from Cerrillos Road, and you can see it just sort of marching on down the street. So it’s a very prominent feature in the community, and people have a lot of associations with it, looking like Santa Fe, and being a Santa Fe landmark. The style of these buildings are what people think of when they think of a Santa Fe kind of style.
- And you can see, it’s really all over the city. All of New Mexico, really, but especially here in Santa Fe, everything from private homes, hotels, to the downtown and plaza area, it’s all in the Spansih Pueblo Revival style.
- And you can see, it’s really all over the city. All of New Mexico, really, but especially here in Santa Fe, everything from private homes, hotels, to the downtown and plaza area, it’s all in the Spansih Pueblo Revival style.
- So, back to a map view, there are four buildings on the campus that have been listed on the National Register, shown here. These buildings were all constructed between 1908 and 1937. And they were listed in part because of this design and construction, because they’re great examples of the Spanish Pueblo Revival Style.
- So clockwise from the top left, the Hospital, Connor Hall which was a boys’ dormitory, School Building No. 2 or Dillon Hall, and the Superintendent's residence. So, like I said, all Spanish Pueblo Revival, very uniform throughout the campus, this level of consistency is actually unusual in New Mexico. The building style here was influenced by Santa Fe based architect John Gaw Meem, who is generally considered one of the most influential architects to have worked in New Mexico. The Superintendent’s Residence here is a very early example of the Spanish Pueblo Revival style, and ultimately, the use of Spanish Pueblo Revival at NMSD was really instrumental in establishing it in New Mexico.
- Let’s look at several examples of how NMSD, and the architects working with them, have made decisions about when and how to add, change, and demolish buildings to meet their needs. The first 2 projects were done by another architect before we started working on the campus, and established a great precedent. As Keri mentioned, Dillon Hall was a 1936 building on the Register. It was a prominent building, facing the main road. And, since it housed typical administration and classroom spaces, it could be restored inside and out and still meet modern needs. These are before and after images of the main façade and main lobby.
- This approach allowed NMSD to modernize the actual classrooms by replacing flooring, ceilings, lighting, and mechanical systems and adding new technology and acoustic treatments without changing the overall building layout or impression.
- While the character of main public spaces like the main lobby and hallways were restored, including protecting and restoring original painted beams and rewiring light fixtures.
- On the exterior, stucco and roofing were updated without making visible changes. And the original windows were refurbished, damaged panes replaced, and interior storm windows added to improve comfort and energy performance without changing the building’s appearance.
- NMSD has also done major additions. Connor Hall was originally an L-shaped 1928 building, with a prominent balcony facing the front road.
- A large addition basically infilled the L-shaped building to create large arts classrooms visible from the side and back of the building, without changing the front face.
- The design created a clear distinction between old and new areas. Rather than replicating the massive forms, rounded stucco edges, and small multi-pane windows of the existing building, the addition has a more planar appearance, crisp edges with metal coping, and large expanses of glass curtainwall.
- Minor additions have also been needed to add elevators and vestibules. These have been located on side or rear facades to minimize impact. While modern materials and windows were used, these are intended to blend as much as possible with the existing buildings since they are small changes that can be worked into the stepped massing of the pueblo revival forms.
- This is what Delgado hall, the current main administration building, looked like when we were hired to do a major renovation… I was pretty shocked to learn that it had originally looked like this – much more typical of the campus’s style, with a sitewall, symmetrical entry façade, divided lite windows, and decorative vigas.
- Delgado had windows from several different eras as you see here, and had lost almost all of its original exterior character.
- So rather than trying to restore the building back to an original condition that is long lost, we are regularizing the window openings and replacing them with 1 type of window that has been used elsewhere on campus, and making new windows where appropriate to break up blank faces.
- Delgado was originally an industrial arts building
- But has been used as an admin building in recent decades with a mishmash of materials as you see here. All interior character was already lost, so the interior is being completely gutted.
- In other campus buildings undergoing minor renovations now, we’re trying to keep original elements like these bookcases, fireplace, light fixtures, and railing while undoing past interventions. We’re removing a lot of surface mounted conduit and track lighting, and adding frameless glass guardrails behind original low railings…
- And removing modern era display cases and wall furring to uncover buried windows and original wall finishes that were left in place but hidden…
- We’ve added 1 new building to the campus, after a lot of discussion about how it should relate to the campus. The interior honors the campus’s history by including a small museum, and supports NMSD’s current focus on literacy by creating a large, deaf-friendly library. Because it sits here in the middle of the campus and is not visible from the main road…
- The exterior of the building is a deliberate departure from the campus’s pueblo revival style. It is constructed mainly of colored, board-formed concrete with a more planar expression and large storefront windows. Some people love it and some hate it, but it reflects the desire of our design team and the building committee to allow the campus to evolve by incorporating some buildings that are visibly of their time.
- NMSD’s master plan also required them to reduce square footage significantly in order to meet state standards and be eligible for funding. Some of the demolition decisions were easy, like removing this 1978 annex that was in terrible condition, lacking in character, and really inelegantly attached to the back of Dillon Hall.
- Slightly sadder was the demolition of the 1938 Laundry building, which had proven challenging to adapt to other needs after laundry was no longer taught as a trade.
- And the toughest was being asked to demolish the 1937 Health Center. It was vacated in 2013 to consolidate space, but was on the National Register and had never had major alterations. It was also remembered by alumni as a place where they were taken care of when they got sick far from home. So, we proposed trying to save a portion of the façade and integrate it into the site design.
- This was a slightly crazy undertaking due to its fragile construction. But we worked closely with the contractor to do controlled demolition and shoring to keep the main entry façade while demolishing the rest of the health center and 2 other buildings, and to stabilize it with buttresses and shotcrete…
- And refinish it to use as an portal to an outdoor classroom area, walking path, and outdoor dining area, in this new central greenspace that was opened up by the demolition of 3 buildings. Alumni were so happy to have a portion of the building kept and interpretive signage added to commemorate its history that it became the centerpiece of the ribbon cutting for the sitework project. It was not the cheapest or easiest solution, but I think it was worth the effort to keep a piece of the school’s history to anchor the new space.
- Switching gears a bit, our 2nd case study is the NM School for the Blind or NMSBVI, which followed a very similar trajectory to NMSD since its creation in 1903. (Both schools were launched well before NM became a state in 1912).
- Like NMSD, it is both a statewide school and a residential campus.
- And it has undergone an even bigger educational transformation over the past 100 years. The general outlines of this change are similar to NMSD, in terms of moving from trade training to academics and individualized learning. But this school changed over time from having students spend their whole education living on campus, to deciding that educating students in the least restrictive environment meant finding ways to support them within their home districts, with only short-term placements on campus for most students.
- NMSBVI’s early decades focused heavily on trades that were compatible with visual impairments, like beadwork, piano-tuning, and making brooms and hammocks…
- By the 1930s the focus on academics was strengthened, with students taking English, Braille, and math in longer class periods. Students were mostly separated by gender and had little socialization.
- In the 40s and 50s, NMSBVI focused much more on socialization and the whole person, with significant growth in athletic, music, and extracurricular programs like dance and theater, and also an increased focus on developing independent living skills.
- This was followed by a period of rapid change with increasing enrollment, a rebirth of industrial arts programs like woodworking and auto mechanics, and introduction of new technologies like CCTV enlargers, talking calculators, and compressed tape recordings.
- By the 90s and 2000s, NMSBVI was providing a robust education for students from ages 3-21, but in facilities that no longer met their needs or current best practices for students with visual impairments.
- The shift from mostly long-term student placements to more short-term stays also had a profound impact on space needs. Many students come to campus for a period of weeks or months to focus intensively on one or two specific skills, like Orientation & Mobility, Math, Independent Living Skills, or Braille. Having fewer students on campus at a time requires less square footage for student spaces. Having students come and go requires better campus zoning and wayfinding than was needed when students stayed for several years and knew the whole campus intimately. And supporting more students in their home districts requires more staff space, to house lending materials and outreach programs.
- In addition to those changes in the educational model, best design practices for students with visual impairments have changed dramatically for key building components like lighting systems, flooring materials, window coverings, and use of pattern and color.
- In addition to those changes in the educational model, best design practices for students with visual impairments have changed dramatically for key building components like lighting systems, flooring materials, window coverings, and use of pattern and color.
- In addition to those changes in the educational model, best design practices for students with visual impairments have changed dramatically for key building components like lighting systems, flooring materials, window coverings, and use of pattern and color.
- And that push for developing independence is even reflected in site circulation, where the campus used to have all linear paths to make it easy for students using canes to navigate, and we now deliberately incorporate challenges like serpentine paths and trellises that cast patterned shade. Taken all together, this is a tremendous amount of change to accomplish within a 100 year old campus.
- And that push for developing independence is even reflected in site circulation, where the campus used to have all linear paths to make it easy for students using canes to navigate, and we now deliberately incorporate challenges like serpentine paths and trellises that cast patterned shade. Taken all together, this is a tremendous amount of change to accomplish within a 100 year old campus.
- You can see it again here in the street view, with the school on the right and the north part of town on the left. With the trees and the lawn, it’s really an oasis in this little town.
- You can see here – we have an aerial from the 1930s in the upper left, and then 1949 in the upper right, and recent at the bottom – it’s always been this little jewel or oasis. Unlike the School for the Deaf, it’s very distinct from the rest of the town.
- These are some images of Alamogordo – there’s not really a set style here like there is in Santa Fe. It’s sort of a grab bag of styles, a little ranch, a little Spanish Pueblo Revival, some more contemporary brick…
- While in contrast, on the campus, you have this very uniform style. All brick, red tile roofs, a lot of the same decoration… even across styles, so while you have some more modern or mid-century buildings, they’re still conforming to the same material palette and scale as the older buildings. It’s a real contrast to the rest of the town. I think this also sets it off and makes it a more special and unique place here.
- While in contrast, on the campus, you have this very uniform style. All brick, red tile roofs, a lot of the same decoration… even across styles, so while you have some more modern or mid-century buildings, they’re still conforming to the same material palette and scale as the older buildings. It’s a real contrast to the rest of the town. I think this also sets it off and makes it a more special and unique place here.
- So, back to the map view, we have the four registered buildings outlined here, really more concentrated on the north end of campus. The Auditorium and Recreation Building is one of three buildings on the campus of the New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped built in the Decorative Brick Style between 1930 and 1938. As used on this campus the style is closely related to the Mediterranean-style designs of Trost and Trost exemplified by the nominated Administration building, and represents Williamson f s interpretation of the pattern established for the campus by Trost, an interpretation which was followed in subsequent buildings. The architect, George, H. Williamson, also designed campus buildings at NMIMT, where he established the use of the California Mission Revival style, as well as at NMSD, and UNM. None of his buildings for these other schools were in the Decorative Brick style which is not found on any of the state-supported New Mexico campuses. The Administration Building is one of four buildings constructed on the campus of the New Mexico School of the Visually Handicapped between 1918 and 1935, and the only building remaining from the period built in the Mediterranean Style. The Administration building is significant because it is the only building of five remaining from the period 1912 to 1919 designed by the architectural firm of Trost and Trost. It is a good example of the style that Trost and Trost had set for the campus during this period. Since the Mediterranean and Decorative Brick Styles are similar, the Administration Building fits in with the other buildings on campus. The overall impression of the campus is one of having a uniform style with individual variations among the buildings. The Central Receiving Building is one of three buildings on the campus of NMSVH constructed in the Decorative Brick style between 1930 and 1938. Not found on other New Mexico campuses, this style had been employed in 1930 by George Williamson for the nominated Auditorium and Recreation building. As used on this campus the style is closely related to the Mediterranean-style designs of Trost and Trost exemplified by the nominated Administration building, and represents a continuation of Williamson f s interpretation of the pattern set for the campus by Trost. Like the 1936 Infirmary, this building represents a continuity of architects in that both Brittelle and Ginner worked for Williamson, and Brittelle had been in business with Trost. The building originally housed a swimming pool which may have been the first indoor pool in New Mexico. The Infirmary Building is one of three buildings on the campus of NMSVH built in the Decorative Brick style between 1930 and 1938. Not found on other state-supported New Mexico campuses, this style had been employed in 1930 by George Williamson for the nominated Auditorium and Recreation Building. As used on this campus the style is similar to the Mediterranean designs of Trost and Trost exemplified by the nominated Administration Building, and represents a continuation of Williamson f s interpretation of the pattern set for the campus by Trost. Like the nominated 1938 Central Receiving Building (original swimming pool), this building represents a continuity among architects in that both Brittelle and Ginner worked for Williarason, and Brittelle had also been in business with Trost.
- The Mediterranean style here was established by early campus architects Trost and Trost. So clockwise from the top left, we have the Ditzler Auditorium, the recreation center, central receiving, the infirmary, and the Paul and Lois Tapia building. Tapia was renovated in 1941 and 1980 Windows may have been changed in 1941 Brick soldier course added to form a wainscot from grade to just below window sills in 1980 remodel; ADA ramp added at entrance Changed from hospital/teacher’s cottage to admin in 1960s Central Receiving renovated in 1980 Pool converted to warehouse space Infirmary Building was renovated in 1980 ADA ramps added on north and east sides Interior renovation NMSBVI rezoning/change in use – History of change in use on campus as campus evolved San Andres Hall – originally a dorm, then music, admin, boardroom, now library and offices Central Receiving is the original natatorium Tapia – teachers cottage, hospital, museum, admin Modern changes in use
- In renovating their buildings, NMSBVI has tried to balance energy and maintenance concerns with historic integrity. For example, the buildings constructed up through the 1940s have divided lite, operable windows in many different shapes and sizes. The scale of the multi-paned windows was an important part of the buildings’ charm, but they were single-paned, in poor condition, and difficult to maintain. In addition, they were factory-produced narrow steel frames embedded into the brick veneer, making abatement and restoration difficult.
- We compared options like restoring existing windows, adding interior storm windows, or replacing windows with one of several different types, looking at thermal performance, maintenance requirements, aesthetics, and cost. Based on this and the available funding, we chose to replace all existing windows with fixed aluminum clad wood windows, customized to match the existing mullion patterns.
- Similar issues applied to roofing decisions… Unlike NMSD where the pueblo style’s flat roofs behind parapets make it easy to modernize roofing materials without a visible impact, NMSBVI’s original clay tile roofs are a big part of the building’s identities. They are also difficult to inspect and maintain, taking the tiles off to replace underlayment can result in breakage of 20% of tiles, and roof leaks from wind-driven rain and failing underlayment were damaging building interiors.
- NMSBVI was open to a full range of roofing options and was concerned about budget, but it was very important to the state historic preservation division to maintain the barrel shape and overall roof profile. So, we salvaged undamaged tile to be used on other campus buildings, replaced the underlayment with a higher quality product, and re-roofed with a barrel-shaped concrete tile which was less fragile and much lower in weight and cost than the clay tile. Like the windows, this is a compromise, but I doubt most people will be able to tell the difference and it was the best way to balance the owner’s concerns about cost and maintenance with the historic profile.
- The historic preservation folks take a remarkably long view… Ditzler, one of the registered buildings, originally had a clay barrel tile roof, but it was replaced decades ago with asphalt shingles. When it needed to be re-roofed again in 2010, HPD argued that it should go back to clay tile. When that provide infeasible based on available state funding for the project, HPD stated in their approval letter that clay tile should be considered the next time the roof is replaced.
- These window and roof solutions are a compromise rather than a restoration, but I doubt most people will be able to tell the difference and it allowed us to balance the owner’s concerns about cost and maintenance with the historic appearance.
- We have designed 1 new building on this campus, which uses modern versions of the campus’s traditional forms and materials. It has a pitched roof made of flat concrete tiles rather than clay barrel tile, and brick veneer walls with a precast concrete wainscot. The entry is a simplified projected bay, and windows echo the white frames of the historic buildings without mimicking the divided lites, and a new roof form is introduced on one wing to provide diffused clerestory lighting.
- And inside the building, it is very much a building of its time in terms of materials, technology, and color choices.
- NMSBVI has also had to make some difficult decisions about demolition. A water tower had stood for decades as a landmark for both the campus and community. After it started to deteriorate prior to our work on campus, it was drained of water. Unfortunately, this apparently sped up the deterioration since without water acting as a ballast to stabilize the tower, it experienced more movement. Due to safety concerns and lack of funding to repair a tower that no longer had a functional use, it was demolished.
- NMSBVI was under a similar mandate from the state to reduce campus square footage in order to meet state standards and qualify for funding. Rather than consider demolition of any of the older or registered buildings, they decided to demolish 2 mid-century buildings and 1 1970s building, because they had not held up as well materially and were not valued as much as the older buildings. The buildings selected for demolition included the practical arts building built in xx shown here…
- The San Andres administration building built in xx
- And the Bert Reeves building built in xx. HPD expressed concern about the loss of mid-century buildings since that has become a widespread issue…
- But the Bert Reeves also included a beloved 3-dimensional clay mural that was created by students working with an artist in residence in the 70s. Investigation determined that the mural could not be removed from the wall without extensive damage.
- In order to preserve it in some way, we partnered with a local college to do a 3D scan of the entire mural to create a digital point cloud. We chose a piece with the most challenging geometry, the face circled here, as a test piece.
- The images on the left are from the 3D model of that piece, and on the right is a physical test print from a 3D printer. While not quite the same as preserving the original, this will give NMSBVI the option to recreate the mural at a future date.
- So, what do these 2 case studies tell us about different approaches that can be taken on historic campuses?
- When you need to reduce square footage or can no longer maintain all of your buildings, how do you decide what to demolish?
- When more or different space is needed, how do you handle additions?