And if Bull Shit was what was used for mortar originally then BY GOD you'd
better use it now to restore the thing. Never mind that the only reason it
was used then was because they didn't have anything better at hand. Was
lime mortar around first, before Cement? If so, maybe that's the reason it
was used, not because it was better. This preservation stuff can only go
so far before it becomes totally impractical. Ruth, the practical Vermonter
At 5:23 PM -0500 1/31/02, Ken Follett wrote:
In a message dated 1/31/2002 1:31:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
][<en will probably remember; it may have been the Terra Cotta building in
Long Island City....
PS1?
Whatever mortar was used, and I don't know if it was a lime mortar, I've
found in several cases on working on bldgs. frm late 19th century steam
brick that there is often no longer any mortar bonding. I've attributed
most of the problem to freeze/thaw cycling combined with the selection of
materials (but besides tasting stuff I do very little lab analysis), which
brings climate into the mortar question. Just because it works in Europe or
Egypt does not mean it has relevance in NYC.
On the Century Building the extensive debonding of the steam brick was
fully across the front above the top water table about 5' in height and
integrated with the terra cotta. The remainder of the facades were in
excellent shape. I'm pretty sure at least a partially Portland mortar was
used... based solely on scratching with a knife and observation of joint
minimal weathering. On PS1 it seemed to my layman's opinion that it is the
entire building that is debonded. Masonry supporting masonry and we can all
pray for no big wind or large earthquake (we do get small earthquakes and
it depends on how big you all think HC is from your vantage point when we
get a strong wind).
Sharpshooter may be able to tell us when lime slaking was no longer legal
within NYC... as from there on out I suspect we would find masonry bldgs.
built with primarily Portland cement based mortars. Outside of NYC, in the
colonial hinterlands, the arguments of using lime mortar make fairly decent
sense to me as there are plenty of historic masonry buildings built with
lime mortar that anxious idiots are trying to repoint with *everlasting*
Portland mortars. In NYC, though, I think the argument that lime mortars
should be used on buildings that never saw a lime mortar are patently
ridiculous, particularly when such ideas come from people who have never
worked on buildings in NYC. So there!
I like lime putty mortars. Do I think that they should be used everywhere
and always? No.
As with many popular solutions the magic answers need a bit of levity and
acceptance of a complexity of factors. We need to have balance and the
sense to not get carried away with the upswell of arguments in favor of
lime mortars and to recognize where there may be legitimate arguments
against using them. The built-environment is not the same creature in all
places.
I've seen situations in which the "popular" craze technique for histo
presto has resulted in a regulating authority, the preservation zealot, who
insisted that the work had to be done in a particular manner and the end
result was more damaging than if the work had simply been done in another
and less currently popular manner.
As a contractor the downside is that in one specifc instance, pertaining to
door stoops of all sedentary objects, we are paying several thousands of
dollars, mainly for political reasons and to sustain our reputation, for
having gotten caught up following the unfortunate folly of the regulator.
This time around we have insisted that a conservator be involved.
Bullshit often is stronger than any mortar.
][<en
--
Ruth Barton
[log in to unmask]
Westminster, VT
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|