Not bad you Li'l Rascal,

Leland
-----Original Message-----
From: ARWNY <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 11:05 AM
Subject: Speculation/Consultative Selling


>So, this is an example of what I give away for free as speculation to get
>future work. I leave it up to the consultants on BP to tell me if this is
>giving away too much. One interesting aspect of this visit is that the
first
>thing I was told was that they intended to pay for any services and that
they
>enough money. Anyone else want to play in the game?
>
>As per my visit to the church on April 2, 1998 I observed the following:
>
>There are two potentially hazardous conditions that I recommend a
structural
>engineer review. We will arrange for a second visit, to bring a structural
>engineer familiar with early 20th century construction to investigate the
>site, and who will be able to provide a separate proposal to do design work
>for safe remediation of the hazardous conditions.
>
>The first hazardous condition is the easternmost roof support beam in the
>tower, at a location approximately direct overhead of the organ. It appears
>that due to water infiltration into the tower that both ends of the beam
have
>been water saturated. The water saturation appears to have caused decay to
the
>wood where the beam rests upon the masonry of the tower. At the south end
of
>the beam, in the upper half where the wood appears to remain in good
>condition, there is a horizontal crack running for approximately five feet
in
>length. At the north end of the beam the decay appears to be more serious
than
>at the south end. The location of the beam is not easily accessible and
>arrangements will be required to make safe access, with adequate lighting,
for
>a structural engineer to closely investigate the existing conditions. We
will
>provide a proposal to make the safe access with lighting.
>
>The second hazardous condition is with the stonemasonry at the exterior
north
>side of the church, at the exit driveway area and to the north of the altar
>area. The stonemasonry above and to the west of the arched window, where
there
>is no mortar in the joints, appears to be in unstable condition. I suspect
>that this area of masonry will need to be removed and rebuilt. I pointed
out
>this condition to Monsignor **** and advised him that for the interim some
>sort of barrier be placed at this location in order to discourage people
from
>going into this area. Further actions should be followed as directed by a
>structural engineer.
>
>At the east elevation of the church, the chimney to the north of the
entrance,
>the top stones appear to be dislocated. We will provide a proposal to use a
>manlift to access to these stones, to investigate the existing condition of
>the chimney, and to re-set the stones as feasible at the time of
>investigation.
>
>The initial reason for the visit was to investigate the cause of water
>penetration into the building, particularly above the organ room. It had
>rained considerably the night before and there were several large areas of
>water observed on the interior of the stonemasonry (vertical surfaces) of
the
>tower, beneath the roof, and apparently directly related to the water
running
>along the wood rafters from a small flat roof above. It was noted that this
>flat roof was recently re-done. Visual inspection of the roof from the top
>surface, a 90 lb. gravel membrane set in cold-tar, did not reveal any
obvious
>problems. Observation was made of the mortar repointing on the tower
stonework
>exterior to the roof area. The existing pointing appeared sound. The stone
is
>a schist, which is not very porous. It is highly unlikely that the amount
of
>water observed on the interior was a result of penetration through either
the
>mortar or the stone. The copper flashings on the masonry turrets appeared
to
>be in sound condition, no pinholes were observed. We recommend a water test
be
>done at the location of the flat roof in order to determine the actual
cause
>of the water penetration. We will provide a proposal to do a water test at
>this location.
>
>At the arch above the altar area there is a sign of water penetration in
the
>plaster interior to the church. Directly above this location is the copper
>steeple which functions as a ventilator. This steeple is located at the
>junction of the roofs. Water penetration can be a result of the louvers in
the
>steeple, problems with the copper valley flashings, or with the tile
roofing.
>Access to this location is difficult as a result of having to work over the
>tile roof without doing damage and the complication of details converging
at
>this one location. We will provide a proposal to use a manlift to
investigate
>at close range the conditions, in conjunction with a structural engineer,
and
>to perform a water test as required.
>On the main tower there are buttresses at each of the four corners. The
>buttress at the northeast corner is complex in design and abuts the main
body
>of the church. Past repointing work has cracked in the juncture of the
masonry
>at this location. It is possible that too hard of a repointing mortar has
been
>used in the past. In all buttresses there are stress cracks that should be
>investigated by a structural engineer.
>
>As I mentioned during the visit, it is our recommendation that a condition
>survey be done starting with the foundation, moving to the roof, and then
>encompassing the walls of the structures. We will provide a proposal to
>conduct a condition survey.
>
>There were several areas noted where access problems, including at the top
of
>the turret roof, inhibit proper maintenance. We recommend that a
maintenance
>and annual inspection program be arranged for these difficult to reach
areas
>
>Though it was not possible, from the ground, to observe any major cracking
in
>the exterior of the tower structure itself, if it is later determined that
a
>close visual inspection is required this is a service that we can arrange
at
>less cost than using either scaffolding or other expensive access
equipment.
>
>We discussed the air flow and cooling aspects of the church during warm
>weather. It appears that the original design of the church included
>accommodations for air flow using the ventilators in the tower, through
>hatches above the organ room, and through the ventilator located above the
>altar. This designed system appears to be dysfunctional at this time. It is
>our recommendation that consideration be made for reviving this system as
it
>will reap more comfort at less cost than installation of an A/C system
(which
>could create other problems for the building), and will result in lower
annual
>energy costs if properly maintained. If you wish to pursue this further
then
>let me know.
>
>We also looked at the original stained glass windows behind the altar.
There
>were two windows with broken glass. We do not recommend installation of
>plastic over the exterior of these windows. Exterior plastic can cause more
>harm than good. Having the mechanical aspects of these windows functioning
>properly would assist in ventilation of the church. We will provide a
proposal
>for the rehabilitation of the works on these windows and replacement of the
>broken glass. The work will be done by the stained glass conservator who
>refurbished the windows at the St. **** Hospital chapel.
>
>We were recommended by **** of St. **** Hospital as a result of our work on
>the exterior, interior ceiling, and stained glass windows at the hospital
>chapel. I very much enjoyed the visit to St. Peter of **** Church and look
>forward to a long-term working relationship. I will be making arrangements
for
>a second visit to follow up on this report and to prepare work proposals to
>cover the items as mentioned above. In the mean time, if we can be of
further
>assistance, or you have additional questions, do not hesitate to call.
>
>][<en Follett