BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gabriel Orgrease <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
This isn`t an orifice, it`s help with fluorescent lighting.
Date:
Thu, 6 May 2004 19:26:51 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
Met History wrote:

> To refabricate the theater's original missing elements (some of which
> are 15 or more feet in one dimension) out of newly quarried brownstone
> is commonly described as "unrealistic".

Christopher,

At the time that the steps were done I believe the only known source for
brownstone was either salvage, or from Germany. The German brownstone,
as I recall, was darker than Portland brownstone, which is prevalent in
NYC. Since then the Portland brownstone quarry has sort of been opened,
but on an odd basis and the stone is not of the same aesthetic quality
-- being quarried at a higher level -- above the flood line. The
shipment of the German brownstone may have been considered prohibitive
in cost... and I'm not aware if it would be available in sizes required
for the steps, or not. The steps were not there when the precast work
was done... as I recall. I do not know why the steps were removed, but
if they were brownstone it could possibly have not been a durable use
for the stone. Sometimes I suspect people forget that there may be a few
reasons why something is missing, or painted over.

Use of any material is dependent on availability and market demand.
Market demand has increased and there are more choices available now for
a variety of brownstones... but none of them to the exacting eye match
to the historic material. So sometimes it is a toss up between one
almost matching deception and another. There has also been a sharper
interest in the stone industry on salvage... but not as noticeable an
interest in the demolition industry. Stone for building, quality
building stone is not a renewable resource. When it is gone it is gone.
When there is no market demand then there is no incentive to quarry.
When there is no quarry there is not awareness of an alternative other
than faux materials. Faux materials begin to be developed to meet a
market demand, with an uptake of interest in heritage conservation (or
as in this case the brownstone revival), and as the faux materials begin
to refine their aesthetic qualities to meet increased levels of quality
expectations (more conservators with a discerning eye graduated) a
market is developed that encourages quarry of brownstone... but not such
a large market that the quarry can afford to pump the CT river out of
the hole so that they can go back down to reach the old stone.

At the R&R I was told by Judy Hayward about a Chinese grad student at
Columbia that I remember having spent three hours with her and two of
her friends when I was at Apple with me going on and on describing the
network and webs of where resources, craft skills and such come from to
fuel the histo presto industy in NY. Twybil sent them to me -- I think
they were in Urban studies. They giggled a lot. I gave them a long list
of people to talk to and suggestions of what questions to ask. This one
young woman, I do not remember her name and she probably has no way to
find me, I encouraged her to consider it as a thesis subject... which
she did think about and now several years later I hear that she has
completed her work on just these sorts of connections. I'm hoping
somehow that I will get to see her paper.

][<en

--
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>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2